The study concluded that the two methods were applicable and reliable. Both methods are more accurate than those described previously and can be conveniently applied in real forensic cases that require the identification of bitemarks; however, the 2D polyline method was more convenient to use and produced prompt computer-read results; whereas, the painting method depended on visual reading by the operator. The bias of the visual examination in the painting method was excluded when the 2D polyline method was used, because the measurements in the arches were performed by overlaying the lines and angles of the editable photos of the bitemark and the study cast. In the 2D polyline method, fixed points were selected on the tips of the canines, and a straight line was drawn between the two fixed points in the arch (intercanine line). Straight lines passing between the incisal edges of the incisors were drawn vertically on the intercanine line; the lines and angles created were calculated. In the painting method, identification was based on canine-to-canine distance, tooth width and thickness, and rotational value of each tooth. The test sample consisted of 50 volunteer dental students, whose ages ranged between 21 and 25. Participants were asked to bite each other's arms with moderate force that did not cause serious injury to the tissues. There were 50 bitemark "victims" and 50 "suspects." After the bitemark was created, photographs were taken with a digital camera. Following photography, an alginate impression was taken for each bitemark. All the photos from the digital camera were transferred to the computer, and the two analytical methods of comparison were applied. 7 figures, 2 tables, and 10 references