A comparative study of sagittal dental relationship using digital method of bite mark evaluation


Pallavi Raina
Narayan Kulkarni
Romil Shah


Introduction: Intercuspation of teeth depends on position of teeth and jaws. Bite mark is the resultant of the intercuspation of teeth produced by an individual. Aims and Objective: Comparative evaluation of bite marks in Angle's Class I, II, and III sagittal occlusion. Materials and Methods: Three groups as per Angle's classification-Class I, Class II, and Class III relation were taken. Each group comprised 30 samples each. The dental casts were scanned to create digital images. “IC Measure” software was used to determine the angular and linear measurements on scanned images of study model after calibration. Internal angles of odontometric triangle, intercanine width, shape of the arch, size, and shape of the individual teeth was recorded and subjected to the statistical analysis. Results: All incisors had rectangular and canine had triangular shape. Bilateral maxillary lateral incisors and mandibular left central incisor were significantly small in size for Class III. Square arch form was found more commonly in Class III and ovoid arch form in Class I and Class II occlusion. Intercanine width was insignificant among all occlusions. All the angles of the odontometric triangle in the maxillary and mandibular arches were significant for Class III. Conclusion: Class III occlusion individuals were distinct for shape of the arch and angles of maxillary and mandibular odontometric triangle. The quantified values of odontometric triangle can be utilized for the identification of Class III individuals.


How to Cite
Pallavi Raina, Narayan Kulkarni, & Romil Shah. (2019). A comparative study of sagittal dental relationship using digital method of bite mark evaluation. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 11(3), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfo.jfds_80_19


  1. Sweet D, Pretty IA. A look at forensic dentistry‑Part 2: Teeth as weapons of violence‑identification of bitemark perpetrators. Br Dent J 2001;190:415‑8.
  2. Gill G, Singh R. Reality Bites-Demystifying Crime. J Forensic Res 2015,1:1.
  3. Wright FD, Dailey JC. Human bite marks in forensic dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45:365‑97.
  4. Lessig R, Wenzel V, Weber M. Bite mark analysis in forensic routine case work. EXCLI J 2006;5:93‑102.
  5. Proffit W. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby; 2007. p. 4‑5.
  6. Kulkarni N, Vasudevan S, Shah R, Rao P, Balappanavar AY. Cheiloscopy: A new role as a marker of sagittal jaw relation. J Forensic Dent Sci 2012;4:6‑12.
  7. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. Systemized Orthodontic Treatment Mechanics. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby; 2002. p. 71‑84.
  8. Chhatpar S, Sabane VS. Role of bite mark analysis in identification of a person in forensic odontology. J Indian Dent Assoc 1989;60:173‑9.
  9. Singh M, Das R, Rao KT. Bite marks an index for identification in crime (An experimental clinic‑anthropological study). J Indian Acad Forensic Med 1988;10:21‑5.
  10. Modak R, Tamgadge S, Mhapuskar A, Hebbale M, Vijayarabhavan NV. Bite mark analysis: Chasing the bite! Indian J Oral Health Res 2016;2:61‑6.
  11. Doyle v. State, 159 Tex. Crim. 310, 263 SW 2d 779; 1954.
  12. Giannelli PC. Bite Mark Analysis. Cleveland, Ohio: Faculty Publications; 2007. p. 153.
  13. Rawson RD, Ommen RK, Kinard G, Johnson J, Yfantis A. Statistical evidence for the individuality of the human dentition. J Forensic Sci 1984;29:245‑53.
  14. Sognnaes RF, Rawson RD, Gratt BM, Nguyen NB. Computer comparison of bitemark patterns in identical twins. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;105:449‑51.
  15. Franco A, Willems G, Souza PHC, Tanaka OM, Coucke W, Thevissen P. Three‑dimensional analysis of the uniqueness of the anterior dentition in orthodontically treated patients and twins. Forensic Sci Int 2017;273:80‑7.
  16. Franco A, Willems G, Souza P, Coucke W, Thevissen P. Uniqueness of the anterior dentition three‑dimensionally assessed for forensic bitemark analysis. J Forensic Leg Med 2017;46:58‑65.
  17. Dyke AE, Cunningham S, Hunt N, Ruff C. A comparative study to investigate the effect of orthodontic treatment on the uniqueness of the human anterior dentition. Forensic Sci Int 2018;289:368‑73.
  18. Kuttikara SJ. Methods in Bitemark Analysis. Master Thesis. University of Oslo; 2017.
  19. Sandeep K, Kirandeep K, Singh A. Bite mark analysis in forensic odontology. Int J Dent Health Sci 2016;3:650‑64.
  20. Bhargava K, Bhargava D, Rastogi P, Paul M, Paul R, Jagadeesh HG, et al. An overview of bite mark analysis. J Indian Acad Forensic 2012;34:61‑6.
  21. Tai MW, Chong ZF, Asif MK, Rahmat RA, Nambiar P. A comparative study between xerographic, computer‑assisted overlay generation and animated‑superimposition methods in bite mark analyses. Leg Med (Tokyo) 2016;22:42‑8.
  22. Pajnigara NG, Balpande AS, Motwani MB, Choudhary A, Thakur S, Pajnigara NG. A comparative study of three commonly used two‑dimensional overlay generation methods in bite mark analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2017;21:442‑6.
  23. Pretty IA. A web‑based survey of odontologist’s opinions concerning bitemark analyses. J Forensic Sci 2003;48:1117‑20.
  24. Tarvadi P, Manipady S, Shetty M. Intercanine distance and bite marks analysis using metric method. Egypt J Forensic Sci 2016;6:445‑8.
  25. Koo YJ, Choi SH, Keum BT, Yu HS, Hwang CJ, Melsen B, et al. Maxillomandibular arch width differences at estimated centers of resistance: Comparison between normal occlusion and skeletal Class III malocclusion. Korean J Orthod 2017;47:167‑75.
  26. Hussein KW, Rajion ZA, Hassan R, Noor SN. Variations in tooth size and arch dimensions in Malay schoolchildren. Aust Orthod J 2009;25:163‑8.
  27. Yang CJ, Chu FT, Qian YF. Bolton tooth‑size discrepancy among different skeletal malocclusion groups. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2009;18:251‑4.
  28. Omar H, Alhajrasi M, Felemban N, Hassan A. Dental arch dimensions, form and tooth size ratio among a Saudi sample. Saudi Med J 2018;39:86‑91.
  29. Guidelines for bite mark analysis. American Board of Forensic Odontology, Inc. J Am Dent Assoc 1986;112:383‑6.
  30. David J. Current status of bitemark analysis in the United States: Legal perspectives. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2013;31:125‑6.