14/07/2026
Scissor bite or undershot bite?
A question that deserves discussion.
With the new SACC commentary, a scissor bite is considered a serious fault from 9 months of age, while a slight undershot bite is described as the ideal.
This raises a fundamental question.
In veterinary dentistry, a scissor bite is regarded as the physiologically normal occlusion of the dog. An undershot bite, on the other hand, is classified as a Class III malocclusion (mandibular mesiocclusion).
This does not mean that every slight undershot bite causes health problems, but it does mean that it is an anatomical deviation from the normal canine occlusion.
Historically, both scissor bites and slight undershot bites were found in the original Cane Corso. The earliest breed standards explicitly accepted the scissor bite. It was only through later revisions that the preference gradually shifted toward the undershot bite.
My question is therefore:
Why should a bite that is considered physiologically normal in veterinary medicine be regarded as a serious fault, while a bite classified as a malocclusion is considered ideal?
Shouldn't a working breed be evaluated primarily on:
- Health
- Functionality
- Construction
- Movement
- Temperament
..rather than penalizing a physiologically normal bite more severely than an anatomical deviation?
This is not an argument against the undershot bite. It is simply a call for an evidence-based discussion.
What scientific or functional evidence supports classifying a scissor bite as a serious fault from 9 months of age?
I would be very interested in well-founded responses from veterinary dentists, veterinary specialists, breed judges, and breeders.
For me always form and function first!
I rather have a siccor bite with good size teeth and a healthy and straight gum then have a deformed gum and smal pin needle teeth.