Forensic dentistry

Dental X-Ray of formerly unidentified murder victim Pamela Buckley, found in 1976

Forensic dentistry or forensic odontology involves the handling, examination, and evaluation of dental evidence in a criminal justice context. Forensic dentistry is used in both criminal and civil law. Forensic dentists assist investigative agencies in identifying human remains, particularly in cases when identifying information is otherwise scarce or nonexistent—for instance, identifying burn victims by consulting the victim's dental records. Forensic dentists may also be asked to assist in determining the age, race, sex, and previous dental history of unidentified human beings. The primary benefit of dental evidence is its perpetual preservation following death. The examination of antemortem and postmortem dental characteristics is made possible by each persons distinctive tooth patterns.

Forensic dentists may make their determinations by using radiographs, ante- and post-mortem photographs, and DNA analysis. Another type of evidence that may be analyzed is bite marks, whether left on the victim (by the attacker), the perpetrator (from the victim of an attack), or on an object found at the crime scene. However, this latter application of forensic dentistry has proven highly controversial, as no scientific studies or evidence substantiate that bite marks can demonstrate sufficient detail for positive identification and numerous instances where experts diverge widely in their evaluations of the same bite mark evidence.

Bite mark analysis has been condemned by several scientific bodies, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and the Texas Forensic Science Commission.

It is important to acknowledge that this discipline as well as any other forensic discipline is very susceptible to bias.

Questions raised by the National Academy of Sciences in its 2009 report on forensic science led several courts to restrict bite-mark testimony.