IIRC the whole science of “bite marks” is hooey. It can rule out some people, or if one has say missing teeth, indicate a pattern. But unlike finger prints, bite marks can’t be conclusively linked to a specific person in most cases. Best uses of it would be to rule people out.
IIRC on bullet forensics, that it too is said to be more of an exact science than it is. For sure things like the rifling pattern on a bullet can help narrow down which type of gun it came from, but if you had two identical guns from the same manufacturing lot, the rifling marks are going to be extremely similar and at some point you are making judgement calls and professional opinions that they aren’t the same vs having 100% proof.
