Affiliation:
1. Centre for Forensic and Legal Medicine and Dentistry, University of Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HN, UK
Abstract
Given that some suspected perpetrators were wrongly convicted, a defective bitemark analysis is comparable to dentists’ most crucial clinical decisions regarding assessment. Bias affects human bitemark analysis beyond the limitation of the evidence itself. The aim of this study was to explore the potential for different types of bias in bitemark analysis and the methods involved in that analysis by conducting a scoping review. Results showed that the 14 articles that explore the topic of bias in bitemark analysis were published from 2006-2022. Publications were from the USA mainly (n = 7), followed by the UK (n = 3), Australia (n = 2), New Zealand, (n = 1) and the Netherlands (n = 1). Of these publications, 36% addressed contextual bias, while 57% acknowledged cognitive bias. According to the findings, preventive measures consist of limiting the availability of unrelated data during research, employing several comparison samples for a more impartial assessment, and repeating the analysis while being blind to past findings. Nevertheless, the physical limitations of the evidence such as distortions are still strongly present.
Reference41 articles.
1. Senn, D.R., and Stimson, P.G. (2010). Forensic Dentistry, CRC. [2nd ed.].
2. Adams, C., Carabott, R., and Evans, S. (2014). Forensic Odontology: An Essential Guide, John Wiley & Sons.
3. Rai, B., and Kaur, J. (2013). Evidence-Based Forensic Dentistry, Springer. [1st ed.].
4. (2024, February 04). ABFO-Standards-Guidelines-for-Evaluating-Bitemarks-Feb-2018.pdf. Available online: https://abfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ABFO-Standards-Guidelines-for-Evaluating-Bitemarks-Feb-2018.pdf.
5. Bowers, C.M., and Bowers, C.M.C. (2010). Forensic Dental Evidence: An Investigator’s Handbook, Elsevier Science.