Considering bitemark evidence, forensic dentists must give testimony that could have catastrophic consequences. A bitemark is often the only physical evidence on a body, and odontologists' testimony should be powerful and simple to understand. Given that perpetrators may be executed or imprisoned for life, a defective bitemark analysis is comparable to dentists' most crucial clinical decisions regarding diagnosis. Bias affects human bitemark analysis, and forensic dentists must examine its invisible impacts to avoid making mistakes. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of different types of bias in bitemark analysis and methods during analysis by conducting a scoping review. The majority of the 14 articles that were taken into consideration were published in 2019. USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands published the most articles. 36% of the publications addressed contextual bias, while 57% acknowledged cognitive bias. Preventive measures have been recommended to address bias in bitemark analysis. These consist of limiting the availability of unrelated data during the research, employing several comparison samples for a more impartial assessment, and repeating the analysis while being blind to past findings. These preventative measures reduce cognitive and contextual bias and improve bitemark analysis in forensic investigations.