What limitations should be considered when using bite-mark analysis for identification?

• A. It is infallible
• B. Skin deformation, movement, aging, lighting, and examiner bias; corroboration with DNA, radiographs, and other data is essential
• C. It replaces DNA testing
• D. It is not influenced by environmental factors

Answer: (B)

Bite-mark analysis is limited because a skin imprint is not a precise, unchanging reflection of teeth. Skin is soft and can deform under pressure, movement, and varying body positions, so the mark may bend, stretch, or smear. As healing occurs, swelling, color change, and surface texture shift, further altering the appearance and complicating any back-tional comparison. Lighting, camera angle, and image scale can distort shape and size in photos or casts, leading to misinterpretation if imaging isn’t standardized. Human judgment also plays a large role; examiner bias and subjective interpretation can influence conclusions when objective criteria are not firmly established.

Because these factors can undermine reliability, bite-mark analysis should not be used in isolation to identify a person. Corroboration with other data is essential: DNA evidence from the bite site (when available), dental radiographs and records to compare dental features with the mark, and additional contextual information. This combined approach helps validate findings and reduces the risk of erroneous identification.