A comparative study between xerographic, computer-assisted overlay generation and animated-superimposition methods in bite mark analyses.

This study was to compare the suitability and precision of xerographic and computer-assisted methods for bite mark investigations. Eleven subjects were asked to bite on their forearm and the bite marks were photographically recorded. Alginate impressions of the subjects' dentition were taken and their casts were made using dental stone. The overlays generated by xerographic method were obtained by photocopying the subjects' casts and the incisal edge outlines were then transferred on a transparent sheet. The bite mark images were imported into Adobe Photoshop® software and printed to life-size. The bite mark analyses using xerographically generated overlays were done by comparing an overlay to the corresponding printed bite mark images manually. In computer-assisted method, the subjects' casts were scanned into Adobe Photoshop®. The bite mark analyses using computer-assisted overlay generation were done by matching an overlay and the corresponding bite mark images digitally using Adobe Photoshop®. Another comparison method was superimposing the cast images with corresponding bite mark images employing the Adobe Photoshop® CS6 and GIF-Animator©. A score with a range of 0-3 was given during analysis to each precision-determining criterion and the score was increased with better matching. The Kruskal Wallis H test showed significant difference between the three sets of data (H=18.761, p<0.05). In conclusion, bite mark analysis using the computer-assisted animated-superimposition method was the most accurate, followed by the computer-assisted overlay generation and lastly the xerographic method. The superior precision contributed by digital method is discernible despite the human skin being a poor recording medium of bite marks.