bite apparatus
notes: label: Description
content: This bite apparatus is from the School of Dental Medicine at the University at Buffalo Laboratory for Forensic Odontology Research, and was used between 2008-2013, when there was a groundswell of concern regarding the reliability of bitemark comparison for forensic identification.
label: Description
content: The apparatus was designed and built by Dr. Kyle Thorsrud. Comprised of a modified vice grip, the machine has two plates to hold upper and lower teeth molds. A load cell adjacent to the upper mold permitted the measurement and replication of the biting force. Two sets of dental models are also included in this accession (2023.0110.02 and 2023.0110.03).
label: Description
content: Dr. Mary Bush, Mr. Peter Bush, and their graduate students, used this apparatus to make test bites on cadavers in a series of studies that were approved by a Human Subject Review Board in order to better understand the numerous variables that can affect bitemarks left in the skin.
label: Description
content: The Bush research was important for its empirical approach, use of cadaver models, and statistical analysis. It ultimately challenged the idea that the arrangement of human teeth is unique and that this pattern can be recorded in human skin, which undergirded the practice of forensic bitemark analysis.
label: Description
content: While examples of convicting an individual based on bitemarks left on a victim precede 1975, the homicide case of People v. Marx that year marked a turning point in this practice. The prosecution successfully argued for the admissibility of expert testimony that supported the idea that marks on the victim were made by the defendant. Later cases would cite this precedent. Famous trails like the one in 1979 for serial killer Theodore Bundy, introduced the wider public to bitemark analysis. The American Board of Forensic Odontology, established in 1976, offered dentists an opportunity to obtain certification in these techniques, which would gain acceptance in the U.S. justice system.
label: Description
content: The rise of DNA analysis, which was first used in forensic science in 1986, offered an opportunity to reexamine evidence from bitemark cases. As the number of exonerations grew, people began to look more critically at bitemark comparison. A landmark 2009 report published by the National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States, echoed these growing concerns: “The committee received no evidence of an existing scientific basis for identifying an individual to the exclusion of all others…Some research is warranted in order to identify the circumstances within which the methods of forensic odontology can provide probative value.”
label: Description
content: The Bush research was therefore well positioned and timed to speak to these concerns, which was evidenced by its inclusion in the 2016 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. However, the Bush research has also been subject to strong push-back, including that from prosecutors and other forensic odontologists, questioning the validity of the study designs and the use of cadavers, which lack vital skin responses. This interplay of research and criticism parallels renewed reflection on other pattern matching forensic science techniques in the first quarter of the 21st century (hair/fiber analysis, firearms examination, tire tread matching).
label: Description
content: References
label: Description
content: People v. Marx, 54 Cal. App. 3d 101 (1975).
label: Description
content: National Research Council. 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12589.
label: Description
content: President’s Council of Advisors on science and Technology. 2016. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf, last accessed 2023-07-05
label: Description
content: Bush, M.A., Bush, P.J., and H.D. Sheets. “Statistical evidence for the similarity of the human dentition.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 56, No. 1 (2011): 118-23
label: Description
content: Bush, M.A., Cooper, H.I., and R.B. Dorion. “Inquiry into the scientific basis for bitemark profiling and arbitrary distortion compensation.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 55, No. 4 (2010): 976-83.
label: Description
content: National District Attorneys Association. 2016-11-16. Response Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/NDAA-PCAST-Response-FINAL.pdf, last accessed 2023-07-05.
label: Location
content: Currently not on view
setName: label: See more items in
content: Medicine and Science: Physical Sciences
creditLine: label: Credit Line
content: Gift of the School of Dental Medicine, University at Buffalo through Mary A. Bush.
dataSource: label: Data Source
content: National Museum of American History
identifier: label: ID Number
content: 2023.0110.01
label: accession number
content: 2023.0110
label: catalog number
content: 2023.0110.01
objectType: label: Object Name
content: bite apparatus
physicalDescription: label: Physical Description
content: steel; gypsum (Calcium Sulfate Hemihydrate); plastic; electronic cord; adhesive tape; sharpie ink; plastic (overall material)
label: Measurements
content: overall (vise grip unit with mounted tooth molds): 7 1/4 in x 11 1/4 in x 2 3/4 in; 18.415 cm x 28.575 cm x 6.985 cm
label: Measurements
content: overall (interface unit): 1 5/8 in x 4 1/4 in x 7/8 in; 4.1275 cm x 10.795 cm x 2.2225 cm