Bite mark analysis is a key finding in forensic crime scene reconstruction. While analytical techniques are evolving in conjunction with technological improvements, these same technological instruments also carry the risk of criminals employing them to falsify evidence. Based on our findings, we rejected the null hypothesis that there would be no difference between actual bite marks and artificial bite marks made with 3D-printed models, dental silicone, and dental wax materials.

The study’s inclusion criteria included not having received orthodontic treatment and being free of dental anomalies. Individuals getting orthodontic treatment have conventional tooth sequences similar to the ideal, which decreases differences between people and reduces the authenticity of bite marks [17]. Patients with tooth alignment disorder, missing teeth or dental anomalies at a level that facilitates detectability were not included in the study [17]. As such scenarios can result in impression mistakes or discrepancies in bite mark analysis, reducing the dependability of the data. To improve the study’s methodological consistency and data accuracy, healthy individuals with complete tooth alignment were chosen. IOS and 3D printer systems, which are increasingly used in odontology, provide advantages in the detection of bite marks [18, 19]. These technologies offer significant convenience in forensic investigations by making it possible to obtain digital data with high accuracy and to produce physical models quickly and precisely [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. When compared to conventional materials, the reproducibility of digital models and the lower danger of data loss give a key benefit in terms of evidence integrity. However, the growing use of 3D printer and scanner technology introduces new challenges in forensic tasks, including the creation of false evidence. It is critical to develop methods for detecting fake bite marks created using printed models, as well as to call into question the reliability of existing techniques. According to the findings of this study, IOS and 3D printer systems have the potential to be used in forensic odontology for evidence collection and prevention of falsification.

Dental wax and dental silicone materials, which are frequently used in the literature for reasons related to material quality and accessibility of supply, as well as providing reproducibility and standardization of the studies, were selected for creating bite marks [23]. When collecting bite mark evidence, material selection is essential to the quality and accuracy of the markings. While the literature describes the use of food items such as chocolate or cheese for bite mark collecting in practical applications [8], the inclusion of such organic ingredients can have a negative impact on the reliability of evidence. Chocolate and cheese are structurally inhomogeneous, meltable, and prone to deformation. This might result in decreased bite mark clarity, missing detail, and measuring mistakes. Furthermore, the rapid growth of microorganisms in these materials complicates evidence preservation and makes them unsuitable for long-term storage and analysis. In forensic odontology applications, bite mark evidence must be produced on objective, reproducible, and long-lasting materials. As a result, it is critical to prefer dental silicone, dental wax, or similar standard materials over foods including chocolate and cheese in terms of evidence accuracy and admissibility in court.

In recent years, a large number of studies have appeared in the literature on erroneous results related to bite mark analysis [4, 9]. However, technological advances necessitate a rethinking of the current role of bite mark analysis in forensic medicine. In this context, rapid technical advancements have had a substantial impact on bite mark analysis. To improve the repeatability and reliability of the information gathered, printer and scanner accuracies were examined using the intercorrelation coefficient, hence reducing the error sources connected with these parameters. This approach is also emphasized in Fournier et al.‘s [13] study on the detection of bite marks using 3D scanners, as methodological errors can lead to misinterpretations about the reliability of digital systems. The use of digital technologies in the field of forensic odontology provides more sensitive and objective data compared to traditional methods. Intraoral scanners provide digital images close to real colors with high accuracy and color scanning in the field of dentistry. Today, it has been reported in the literature that 3D intraoral scanning can be successfully performed with some mobile phones [10]. These devices’ ease of use can improve the reliability of the results by allowing for faster recordings from the crime scene. The deployment of such devices at crime scenes where bite marks are found can improve the effectiveness of forensic investigations by speeding up the collection of physical evidence. Furthermore, direct digitization of data gathered through digital scanning methods enables the preservation of evidence integrity and more extensive examination.

The exponential development of digital technologies creates new challenges. The hazards of software and hardware mistakes or manipulation that may occur during the generation of digital evidence are particularly notable. As a result, developing standard methods is crucial for assuring the validity of digital evidence used in forensic investigations. In our study, we determined whether the hypothesized 3D models could replicate the actual bite marks and distinguish between them. The superimposition of the actual bite marks at different times (O1O2) yielded 0.081 ± 0.12 mm for dental wax and 0.070 ± 0.21 mm for dental silicone. The superimposition of the actual bite marks at different times (O1O2) yielded the same results of 0.182 ± 0.26 mm and 0.180 ± 0.16 mm for the actual bite-model (O1M). This demonstrated that, while it was previously assumed that the dental model, which was designed to reproduce the dentition predicted in our pre-study hypothesis, replicated the bite mark, this distinction could be identified via digital analysis. This highlights the possible use of digital analysis in forensic odontology.

In this study, bite marks on dental wax and dental silicone were examined in light of the literature. All volunteers were individuals with Class I dentitions who had not received orthodontic treatment. This methodology narrows the range of methods by excluding various dental variations. The idea of producing artificial bite marks was investigated in a laboratory setting using digital models. Given the complexities of the data gathered from actual crime scenes, not all complicated aspects that could influence the outcomes were considered in the research.

Considering that there are other materials recommended in literature (e.g., vinyl polysiloxane, acrylic, etc.) [6, 24] and unlimited materials that can be examined in real events, it is not possible to evaluate all these materials in one study. However, in the future, this limitation should be eliminated with different studies.

Another drawback of the study is that it does not cover varying instances in terms of jaw dimensions in order to standardize experiment techniques. This may constitute a potential source of error in the obtained RMS values ​​and should be taken into account in future studies. The technique used in this study does not fully represent real-world instances. The experimental approach did not account for condylar movement, and only people with Class I occlusion were studied. Furthermore, this model does not account for the heterogeneity, mobility, and surface abnormalities of skin tissue observed in real-world occurrences. In most forensic situations, bite marks are detected in two dimensions and are more difficult to assess. These constraints may restrict the findings’ direct applicability to real-world circumstances.