Bitemark analysis comparing the use of digital scans and 3D resin casts

Although dental patterns are unique, the use of bitemark analysis in personal identification remains controversial. To accurately reproduce and compare three-dimensional models of bitemarks and dental arches, intraoral three-dimensional scans, commonly utilized in clinical dental practice for precise and stable digital impressions, are recommended. This study aims to compare two different techniques for bitemark analysis: a digital method based on the superimposition of digital scans of dental patterns and lesions, and a visual method based on the physical superimposition of impressions and resin casts produced by 3D printing. A sample of 12 volunteers (6 males and 6 females) with a mean age of 26 years was collected as biters. Each subject was asked to bite on custom supports made from semi-rigid water bottles covered with imprint table dental wax. The dental arches and bitemarks were then recorded using an intraoral scanner and dental impressions. Scan superimposition analysis was conducted using Cloud Compare software, while resin casts were printed using a 3D printer and physically superimposed on the bitemark impressions by a blind operator, who was not involved in sample collection, bite test execution, prior cast acquisition, or Cloud Compare analysis. Both superimposition techniques relied on the selection of 10 corresponding landmarks (on canines and central and lateral incisors of the upper and lower arches) between the dental arches and impressions. The digital superimposition showed an average concordance of 92.5% for the upper arch landmarks and 85% for the lower arch landmarks, with an overall average concordance of 88.8% for both arches combined. In contrast, the visual analysis of resin casts showed an average concordance of 77.5% for the upper arch and 76.7% for the lower arch, with an overall average of 77.1% for both arches combined. In the analysis performed using Cloud Compare, the maxillary arch demonstrated the best superimposition, with 4 landmarks (R0, R1, R2, R5) consistently overlapping. The digital analysis outperformed the visual analysis in all four quadrants, particularly in the upper right arch compared to the lower left arch, thereby supporting the integration of digital techniques in forensic applications. Further studies are necessary to validate the digital technique on a larger sample, including subjects with different dental characteristics, bite dynamics, and varying types of supports and substrates.