Distinguishing actual from 3D-printed bite marks in forensic odontology: accuracy and reliability of digital analysis

The convenience of gathering evidence is enhanced by three-dimensional (3D) scanner and printer technologies, however they also raise the risk of creating false evidence. The purpose of this study is to analyze the accuracy of bite marks obtained from digital dental models using quantitative methodologies, as well as to investigate the potential for bite marks obtained from models manufactured using 3D printing technology to produce false evidence. Between the ages of 18 and 25, 15 volunteers who had not undergone orthodontic treatment and had a class I skeletal relationship were included in the study and maxillary impressions were taken with an intraoral scanner (IOS). Maxillary models were produced with a 3D printer from digital impressions. Using dental silicone and dental wax materials often used by forensic odontologists, bite marks were obtained from both volunteers and their 3D models. Similarity analysis of bite marks was performed using the superimposition method using a 3D surface matching software program (Geomagic Control X 2020; 3D System). Following superimposition, RMS (Root Mean Square) values were calculated and utilized for comparison. The bite marks from participants differed significantly from those from 3D printed models (P < .05). While bite marks obtained from 3D printed models first looked to be identical to the actual marks, digital scanning and superimposition analysis revealed significant variances. Advancements in 3D printing technology, as well as their ease of use, may enhance the possibility of evidence fabrication. While this study demonstrates that there are discernible distinctions between actual bite marks and artificials, consistent techniques are required to improve the trustworthiness of digital data in forensic odontology. • Effect size (Cohen’s d) and RMS-based analysis demonstrated a clinically meaningful difference between original and 3D-printed bite marks. • 3D scanning and printing errors were quantitatively assessed and found to be negligible for forensic applications. • The study introduced ROC analysis as an objective method to determine threshold values for distinguishing artificial bite marks. • Findings support the integration of digital bite mark analysis into standardized forensic odontology protocols to improve fraud detection.