title: Accuracy of bite mark analysis from food substances: A comparative study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aims and objectives of the study were to compare the accuracy of bite mark analysis from three different food substances-apple, cheese and chocolate using two techniques-the manual docking procedure and computer assisted overlay generation technique and to compare the accuracy of the two techniques for bite mark analysis on food substances.
  
  
  METHODS
  The individuals who participated in the study were made to bite on three food substances-apple, cheese, and chocolate. Dentate individuals were included in the study. Edentulous individuals and individuals having a missing anterior tooth were excluded from the study. The dental casts of the individual were applied to the positive cast of the bitten food substance to determine docking or matching. Then, computer generated overlays were compared with bite mark pattern on the foodstuff.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The results were tabulated and the comparison of bite mark analysis on the three different food substances was analyzed by Kruskall-Wallis ANOVA test and the comparison of the two techniques was analyzed by Spearman's Rho correlation coefficient.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  On comparing the bite marks analysis from the three food substances-apple, cheese and chocolate, the accuracy was found to be greater for chocolate and cheese than apple.
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Government of Puducherry Institution, Puducherry, India.
authors.forename: M Jonathan
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Daniel
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Government of Puducherry Institution, Puducherry, India.
authors.forename: Ambiga
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Pazhani
keywords: Bite marks; computer generated overlays; hand docking
references.citation: Br Dent J. 1973 Sep 18;135(6):285-7
references.pmid: 4519182
references.citation: J Forensic Odontostomatol. 1994 Dec;12(2):41-4
references.pmid: 9227065
references.citation: J Prosthet Dent. 1984 Jul;52(1):120-5
references.pmid: 6379155
references.citation: Dent Update. 2008 Jan-Feb;35(1):48-50, 53-4, 57-8 passim
references.pmid: 18277695
references.citation: J Forensic Sci. 1988 Sep;33(5):1238-43
references.pmid: 3057111
references.citation: J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2000 Dec;18(2):27-31
references.pmid: 11324267
references.citation: J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2000 Jun;18(1):10-4
references.pmid: 11324087
references.citation: J Forensic Sci Soc. 1974 Jul;14(3):247-52
references.pmid: 4613797
references.citation: J Calif Dent Assoc. 1996 May;24(5):29-34
references.pmid: 9052019
references.citation: J Forensic Sci. 1998 Mar;43(2):362-7
references.pmid: 9544542
references.citation: J Prosthet Dent. 1981 Feb;45(2):209-15
references.pmid: 7009840
references.citation: J Forensic Sci. 2004 Jan;49(1):111-8
references.pmid: 14979355