Bitemark analysis: Use of polyether in evidence collection, conservation, and comparison


Gabriel Fonseca
Martin Farah
Sabrina Orellano-Blaskovich


Background: While bitemarks are categorical identification evidence, the dynamics of biting, the anatomical location of the bite, and failures in wound records can introduce distorted images and mislead crime investigation. Materials and Methods: In this study, 20 bitemarks were performed on dead pig skin and subsequently photographed, excised, conserved, and analyzed using digital comparison (Adobe Photoshop™ 8.0), following the standard procedures (ABFO); physical comparison was also done using polyether (Impregum™; 3M) casts. Study plaster casts of the upper and lower jaws of each subject were taken using type IV yellow densite stone. Polyether was used as impression material to obtain bitemarks, and casts were made from densite stone and polyether. Results: Because of its elasticity, polyether casts can compensate for primary or secondary distortions, so that there is a better degree of match when positioning the subject′s dental cast. Conclusion: Polyether is an alternative impression material and is an excellent option for creating positive casts of the wound for physical dynamic comparison.


How to Cite
Gabriel Fonseca, Martin Farah, & Sabrina Orellano-Blaskovich. (2009). Bitemark analysis: Use of polyether in evidence collection, conservation, and comparison. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 1(2), 66–72.


  1. Bernstein ML. Nature of Bitemarks. In: Dorion RB, editor. Bitemark Evidence. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004. p. 59-60.
  2. Martin-de las Heras S, Valenzuela A, Ogayar C, Valverde AJ, Torres JC. Computer-based production of comparison overlays from 3D-scanned dental casts for bite mark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2005;50:127-33.
  3. Sheasby DR, MacDonald DG. A forensic classification of distortion in human bite marks. Forensic Sci Int 2001;122:75-8.
  4. Freeman AJ, Senn DR, Arendt DM. Seven hundred seventy eight bite marks: analysis by anatomic location, victim and biter demographics, type of crime, and legal disposition. J Forensic Sci 2005;50:1436-43.
  5. Vale GL, Noguchi TT. Anatomical distribution of human bite marks in a series of 67 cases. J Forensic Sci 1983;28:61-9.
  6. Lessig R, Wenzel V, Weber M. Bite mark analysis in forensic routine case work. EXCLI J 2006;5:93-102.
  7. Pretty IA, Sweet D. Anatomical location of bitemarks and associated findings in 101 cases from the United States. J Forensic Sci 2000;45:812-4.
  8. Dorion RBJ. Human Bitemarks. In: Dorion RB, editor. Bitemark Evidence. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004. p. 323.
  9. Sakoda S, Fujita MQ, Zhu BL, Oritani S, Ishida K, Taniguchi M, et al. Wounding dynamics in distorted bitemarks: two case reports. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2000;18:46-51.
  10. Rothwell BR. Bite marks in forensic dentistry: a review of legal, scientific issues. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:223-32.
  11. Al-Talabani N, Al-Moussawy ND, Baker FA, Mohammed HA. Digital analysis of experimental human bitemarks: application of two new methods. J Forensic Sci 2006;51:1372-5.
  12. Rawson RD, Brooks S. Classification of human breast morphology important to bite mark investigation. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1984;5:19-24.
  13. American Board of Forensic Odontology. ABFO Bitemark Guidelines, 2009 January; Forensic_pages_1/bitemark_guidelines.htm. [Cited in 2009 Jan].
  14. Delattre VF. Teamwork in Bitemark Investigation. In: Dorion RB, editor. Bitemark Evidence. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004. p. 56.
  15. Bernitz H, van Heerden WF, Solheim T, Owen JH. A technique to capture, analyze, and quantify anterior teeth rotations for application in court cases involving tooth marks. J Forensic Sci 2006;51:624-9.
  16. Bowers CM, Johansen RJ. Digital analysis of bite marks and human identification. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45:327-42.
  17. Bowers CM, Johansen RJ. Photographic evidence protocol: the use of digital imaging methods to rectify angular distortion and create life size reproductions of bite mark evidence. J Forensic Sci 2002;47:178-85.
  18. Martin-de las Heras S, Valenzuela A, Javier Valverde A, Torres JC, Luna-del-Castillo JD. Effectiveness of comparison overlays generated with DentalPrint software in bite mark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2007;52:151-6.
  19. Dorion RB. Bitemark Impressions. Noninvasive analyses. In: Dorion RB, editor. Bitemark Evidence. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004. p. 203-8.
  20. Avon SL, Wood RE. Porcine skin as an in-vivo model for ageing of human bite marks. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2005;23:30-9.
  21. Lu H, Nguyen B, Powers JM. Mechanical properties of 3 hydrophilic addition silicone and polyether elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:151-4.
  22. Aimjirakul P, Masuda T, Takahashi H, Miura H. Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:385-9.
  23. Walker MP, Petrie CS, Haj-Ali R, Spencer P, Dumas C, Williams K. Moisture effect on polyether and polyvinylsiloxane dimensional accuracy and detail reproduction. J Prosthodont 2005;14:158-63.
  24. Michalakis KX, Bakopoulou A, Hirayama H, Garefis DP, Garefis PD. Pre- and post-set hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthodont 2007;16:238-48.
  25. McCabe JF, Carrick TE. Recording surface detail on moist surfaces with elastomeric impression materials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2006;14:42-6.
  26. German MJ, Carrick TE, McCabe JF. Surface detail reproduction of elastomeric impression materials related to rheological properties. Dent Mater 2008;24:951-6.
  27. Johnson GH, Lepe X, Aw TC. The effect of surface moisture on detail reproduction of elastomeric impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:354-64.
  28. Mondon M, Ziegler C. Changes in water contact angles during the first phase of setting of dental impression materials. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:49-53.
  29. ImpregumTM Soft Polyether Impression Material. Technical Product Profile. 3M Espe. Available from: Impregum_Soft_E_infotech.pdf [last cited on 2009 Jan].
  30. Blackwell SA, Taylor RV, Gordon I, Ogleby CL, Tanijiri T, Yoshino M, et al. 3-D imaging and quantitative comparison of human dentitions and simulated bite marks. Int J Legal Med 2007;121:9-17.
  31. Bernitz H, Owen JH, van Heerden WF, Solheim T. An integrated technique for the analysis of skin bite marks. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:194-8.
  32. van der Velden A, Spiessens M, Willems G. Bite mark analysis and comparison using image perception technology. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2006;24:14-7.
  33. Thali MJ, Braun M, Markwalder TH, Brueschweiler W, Zollinger U, Malik NJ, et al. Bite mark documentation and analysis: the forensic 3D/CAD supported photogrammetry approach. Forensic Sci Int 2003;135:115-21.
  34. Rothwell BR, Thien AV. Analysis of distortion in preserved bite mark skin. J Forensic Sci 2001;46:573-6.
  35. Sweet DJ, Bastien RB. Use of an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) plastic ring as a matrix in the recovery of bite mark evidence. J Forensic Sci 1991;36:1565-71.
  36. Dorion RB. Tissue Specimens. Invasive Analyses. In: Dorion RB, editor. Bitemark Evidence. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004. p. 225.
  37. Pretty IA, Sweet DJ. The judicial view of bitemarks within the United States Criminal Justice System. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2006;24:1-11.
  38. Bernstein ML. Two bite mark cases with inadequate scale references. J Forensic Sci 1985;30:958-64.
  39. Sperry K, Campbell HR Jr. An elliptical incised wound of the breast misinterpreted as a bite injury. J Forensic Sci 1990;35:1226-35.
  40. Grey TC. Defibrillator injury suggesting bite mark. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1989;10:144-5.
  41. Pretty IA. Development and validation of a human bitemark severity and significance scale. J Forensic Sci 2007;52:687-91.
  42. Dailey JC. The Comparison. In: Dorion RB, editor. Bitemark Evidence. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004. p. 423-4.
  43. Ström F. Investigation of bite-marks. J Dent Res 1963;42:312-6. 44. Pretty IA. Forensic dentistry: 2. Bitemarks and bite injuries. Dent Update 2008;35:48-50, 53-4, 57-8 passim.