Forensic odontological examination of a disputed bitemark can furnish the police and the prosecutor with useful evidence to either implicate or exonerate a person in relation to a crime, on the basis that each person’s bitemark is as distinctive as his or her dentition. The aims of this article are (a) to evaluate the extent of which bitemark evidence is reliable as a proof of identification of a biter for the purposes of criminal investigation and prosecution in Malaysia and (b) to make the necessary recommendations (if any) for the purpose of improving the reliability of such evidence. Where a questioned bitemark is not sufficiently detailed, any findings made from its examination shall be highly unreliable and prejudicial. On the other hand, where a bitemark is sufficiently detailed, then any findings made from its examination may be reliable, provided that the forensic odontologists and other practitioners in the criminal justice system are professionally trained to handle the said bitemark. Therefore, police officers must be given a basic training in the field of forensic odontology so that they will be able to appreciate the evidential value of bitemark and contribute to the development of bitemark cases in Malaysia. The relevant authorities governing the dental practice in Malaysia should standardize the methodology and terminology used in bitemark examination and in the reporting of its findings so that confusion and inconsistency among the forensic odontologists are kept absolutely low. Finally, forensic odontologists must be given specialized training in bitemark examination so that the probative value of their findings can be improved.