Post-Mortem Animal Bite Mark Analysis Reimagined: A Pilot Study Evaluating the Use of an Intraoral Scanner and Photogrammetry for Forensic 3D Documentation

Digital dentistry is undergoing rapid evolution, with three-dimensional imaging technologies increasingly integrated into routine clinical workflows. Originally developed for accurate dental arch reconstruction, modern intraoral scanners have demonstrated expanding versatility in capturing intraoral mucosal as well as perioral cutaneous structures. Concurrently, photogrammetry has emerged as a powerful method for full-face digital reconstruction, particularly valuable in orthodontic and prosthodontic treatment planning. These advances offer promising applications in forensic sciences, where high-resolution, three-dimensional documentation of anatomical details such as palatal rugae, lip prints, and bite marks can provide objective and enduring records for legal and investigative purposes. This study explores the forensic potential of two digital acquisition techniques by presenting two cadaveric cases of animal bite injuries. In the first case, an intraoral scanner (Dexis 3600) was used in an unconventional extraoral application to directly scan skin lesions. In the second case, photogrammetry was employed using a digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera and Agisoft Metashape, with standardized lighting and metric scale references to generate accurate 3D models. Both methods produced analyzable digital reconstructions suitable for forensic archiving. The intraoral scanner yielded dimensionally accurate models, with strong agreement with manual measurements, though limited by difficulties in capturing complex surface morphology. Photogrammetry, meanwhile, allowed for broader contextual reconstruction with high texture fidelity, albeit requiring more extensive processing and scale calibration. A notable advantage common to both techniques is the avoidance of physical contact and impression materials, which can compress and distort soft tissues, an especially relevant concern when documenting transient evidence like bite marks. These results suggest that both technologies, despite their different origins and operational workflows, can contribute meaningfully to forensic documentation of bite-related injuries. While constrained by the exploratory nature and small sample size of this study, the findings support the viability of digitized, non-destructive evidence preservation. Future perspectives may include the integration of artificial intelligence to assist with morphological matching and the establishment of digital forensic databases for pattern comparison and expert review.