ABSTRACT
When authorities have identified the potential biter, his or her dental records provide the basis for comparison with the bitemark. The results of this comparison culminate with the forensic dentist’s opinion on the correlation between the suspected biter and the patterned injury. It must be noted that, from a historical perspective, the terminology used by forensic dentists for linking a suspected biter to the patterned injury has changed with time. This evolution has occurred to minimize ambiguity and to strengthen opinions related to bitemark casework as recommended by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report [1]. It is safe to conclude that such terminology will continue to evolve.
