“COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FINGER PRINTS, LIP PRINTS AND PALATAL

RUGAE PATTERN AMONG THREE SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS OF A

FAMILY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH DENTAL CARIES ”

A dissertation submitted

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of

MASTER OF DENTAL SURGERY

BRANCH VI

ORAL PATHOLOGY & MICROBIOLOGY

THE TAMILNADU DR.M.G.R. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY

CHENNAI – 600032
2017 - 2020
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDIATE

I hereby declare that this dissertation titled “COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FINGER

PRINTS, LIP PRINTS AND PALATAL RUGAE PATTERN AMONG THREE

SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS OF A FAMILY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH

DENTAL CARIES” is a bonafide and genuine research work carried out by me under the

guidance of DR.C.R.MURALI, M.D.S., Professor, Head of the Department, Department of

Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Best Dental Science College, Madurai – 625104.

DR.A.ANJALI
 CERTIFICATE BY THE GUIDE

This is to certify that DR.A.ANJALI, PostGraduate student (2017 -2020) in Department of

Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Best Dental Science College, Madurai has done this
dissertation titled “COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FINGER PRINTS, LIP PRINTS AND
PALATAL RUGAE PATTERN AMONG THREE SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS OF A
FAMILY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH DENTAL CARIES” under my direct
guidance and supervision in partial fulfillment of the regulations laid down by the Tamilnadu
DR.M.G.R. Medical University Chennai – 600032, in Oral pathology and Microbiology (Branch
VI) for MDS Degree Examination.

DR.C.R.MURALI, M.D.S.,

Professor and guide

Head of the Department

Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology,

Best Dental Science College, Madurai – 625104.

 ENDORSEMENT BY HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND

HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION

This is to certify that the dissertation titled “COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FINGER PRINTS,
LIP PRINTS AND PALATAL RUGAE PATTERN AMONG THREE SUCCESSIVE
GENERATIONS OF A FAMILY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH DENTAL
CARIES” is a bonafide research work done by DR.A.ANJALI, Post Graduate student (2017 -
2020) in Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology under the guidance of
DR.C.R.MURALI MDS., Professor and Guide, Department of Oral pathology and
Microbiology, Best Dental Science College, Madurai – 625104.

DR.C.R.MURALI, M.D.S., DR.K.S.PREMKUMAR M.D.S.,

Professor and Head of the Department Principal,

Department of Oral Pathology & Microbiology, Best Dental Science College,

Best Dental Science College, Madurai. Madurai.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, praises and thanks to the God, the Almighty, for his

showers of blessings throughout my research work to complete the research successfully.

I would like to thank Chairman Prof.K.R.Arumugam, M.Pharm., and Vice

Chairman Mr.A.Babu Dhandapani, M.Pharm., PhD., for providing me all the necessary

facilities to empower my knowledge.

I offer my sincere thanks to my Principal Dr.K.S.Premkumar M.D.S, Best

Dental Science College, Madurai for his encouragement, constant motivation in academics

oriented activities and tremendous support throughout my postgraduation.

I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my guide,

Dr.C.R.Murali M.D.S., Professor and Head, Department of Oral Pathology & Microbiology, for

giving me the opportunity to do research and providing invaluable guidance and support

throughout this research. He has taught me the methodology to carry out the research and to

present the research works as clearly as possible but steered me in the right direction when I

needed it. It is a great privilege and honor to work and study under his guidance.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr.N.V.Vani M.D.S., Reader,

for her patient guidance and motivation. I am deeply grateful to her for the long discussions that

helped me sort out the technical details of my work. I thank you Madam for the mentorship and

valuable suggestions to complete this research. Her work ethics and critical acumen have been a

source of inspiration to pursue my study.

Dr.K.T.Shanmugam M.D.S., Reader for his guidance, support and patience

during the completion of this study.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deep gratitude to Dr.M.Rajanna Venkatraman

M.D.S., and Dr.I.Janani M.D.S Senior lecturers, for their encouragement and valuable

suggestions during this research.

I would like to thank Dr.Dheepthasri M.D.S., Madurai who helped me with

statistical analyses for the study.

It was the assistance rendered by my senior which made my task easier. I wish to

gratefully acknowledge the value and help of my juniors Dr.D.Sowmiya, Dr.R.Naveen Kumar,

Dr.B.Soundaram and Dr.P.Mareeswaran for their motivation and tremendous support and I

am thankful to Mrs.K.Manimegalai Laboratory technician for helping me in all aspects of my

practical work. I also offer my thanks to the non-teaching staff , Mrs.Malaiayee, for her help.

I would like to thank Mrs.J.Sujitha, librarian, Best Dental Science College and

Hospital, Madurai, for her support and help during the search of articles.

Finally, my deep and sincere gratitude to my parents, Mr.A.Arutchelvan and Mrs.A.Revathi ,

my younger brother Mr.A.Vikraman, my grandfather Mr.A.Amboiram and my late

grandmother Mrs.A.Kejambal ,My uncles Mr.A.Lenin and Dr.A.Prakash, My aunties

Mrs.T.Chithra and Dr.M.Meena , my dear cousins and friends for their continuous ,

unparalleled love and support. I would also thank my uncle and aunt Mr.Murugavel and

Mrs.Anandhi for their moral support in completing my thesis. Atlast I do not know how to

begin saying thank you to my soul mate, my dearest husband Dr.M.Ajith kumar for being so

understanding, lovable, friendly guidance during my thesis work. I thank god for enlightening

my life with your presence.

 DECLARATION

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FINGER

PRINTS, LIP PRINTS AND PALATAL RUGAE
TITLE OF DISSERTATION PATTERN AMONG THREE SUCCESSIVE
GENERATIONS OF A FAMILY AND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP WITH DENTAL CARIES

PLACE OF STUDY BEST DENTAL SCIENCE COLLEGE,

MADURAI – 625104

DURATION OF THE COURSE 3 YEARS

NAME OF THE GUIDE DR.C.R.MURALI MDS

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT DR.C.R.MURALI MDS

I hereby declare that no part of the dissertation will be utilized for gaining financial
assistance/any promotion without obtaining prior permission of the Principal, Best Dental
Science College, Madurai – 625104. In addition, I declare that no part of this work will be
published either in print or in electronic media without the guide who has been actively involved
in dissertation. The author has the right to reserve for publish of work solely with the prior
permission of the Principal, Best Dental Science College, Madurai – 625104.

Head of the Department Guide Signature of the candidate

 COPYRIGHT

DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Tamilnadu shall have the

rights to preserve, use and disseminate this research in print or electronic format for academic /

research purpose.

Date : 13.1.2020 Signature of the candidate

Place: MADURAI (Dr.A.Anjali)

C THE TAMILNADU DR.M.G.R MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, TAMILNADU

 TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT

This agreement herein after the “Agreement” is entered into on this day of / /2019
between the Best Dental Science College represented by its Principal having address
at Best Dental Science College, Madurai – 625104. (Hereafter referred to as “the
college”).

And

DR.C.R.MURALI M.D.S., aged 45 years, working as Professor and Head of the

Department at the college, having residence address at CT – 2, Arun C block,
Vindhyachal Apartment, Chanda Gandhi Nagar, Bypass Road, Madurai – 625010.
Herein after referred to as the Principal Investigator.

And

DR.A.ANJALI, aged 27 years, studying as postgraduate student in the Department of

Oral Pathology and Microbiology in Best dental Science College. Herein after
referred to as the PG/research student and co-investigator.

Whereas PG / Research student as part of his curriculum undertakes to research

“COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FINGER PRINTS, LIP PRINTS AND PALATAL RUGAE PATTERN
AMONG THREE SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS OF A FAMILY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH
DENTAL CARIES” for which purpose PG/Principal Investigator shall act as Principal
Investigator and the college shall provide requisite infrastructure based on availability
and also provide facility to the PG /Research student as to the extent possible as a Co–
investigator.

Whereas the parties, by this agreement have mutually agreed to the various issues
including in particular the copyright and confidentiality issues that arises in this
regard.Now this agreement witnesseth as follows:

1.The parties agree that all the Research material and ownership therein shall become
the vested right of the college, including in particular all the copyright in the literature
including the study, Research and all other related papers.

2. To the extent that the college has legal right to do go, shall grant to license or
assign the copyright do vested with it for medical and or commercial usage of
 CERTIFICATE-II

This is to certify that this dissertation work titled “COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FINGER

PRINTS, LIP PRINTS AND PALATAL RUGAE PATTERN AMONG THREE

SUCCESSIVE GENERATIONS OF A FAMILY AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP

WITH DENTAL CARIES” of the candidate DR.A.Anjali with registration 241721351

number for the award of master of dental surgery in the branch of Branch-VI Oral

Pathology and microbiology. I personally verified the urkund.com website for the purpose

of plagiarism check. I found that uploaded thesis file contained from introduction to

conclusion and the result shows 6% of plagiarism in the dissertation.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO TITTLE PAGE NO.

INTRODUCTION 1
1
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 6
2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS 12
4
RESULTS 21
5
TABLES 25
6
GRAPHS 34
7
DISCUSSION 50
8
CONCLUSION 55
9
BIBLIOGRAPHY 56
10
ANNEXURES
11
 LIST OF FIGURES
S.NO TITLE PAGE NO.

2
1 Relationship between volar pads and finger ridge
pattern
2 14
Classification of Finger prints
3 16
Classification of lip prints
4 17
Classification of palatal rugae pattern
5 18
Oral health assessment form WHO 2013
6 20
Armamentarium
7 43
Finger print pattern of three generations
8 44
Finger print image analysis using adobe photoshop
9 45
Lip print pattern of three generations
10 46
Lip print image analysis using adobe photoshop
11 47
Palatal rugae pattern of three generations
12 Palatal rugae pattern image analysis using adobe 48
photoshop
 LIST OF TABLES
S.NO TITTLE PAGE NO.

1 Demographic details 25

2 Repetition pattern for all parameters in three generation 25

3 Repetition pattern of finger print 25

4 Repetition pattern of lip print 25

5 Repetition pattern of Palatal rugae (Shape) 26

6 Repetition pattern of Palatal rugae (Unification) 26

7 Comparison between Finger print pattern and Dental caries in 26

First generation in First generation

8 Comparison between lip print pattern and Dental caries in 27

First generation

9 Comparison between palatal rugae pattern(shape) and Dental 27

caries in First generation

10 Comparison between palatal rugae pattern(Unification) and 27

Dental caries in First generation

11 Comparison between Finger print pattern and Dental caries in 28

Second generation

12 Comparison between lip print pattern and Dental caries in 28

Second generation

13 Comparison between palatal rugae pattern(shape) and Dental 29

caries in Second generation

14 Comparison between palatal rugae pattern(Unification) and 29

Dental caries in Second generation

15 Comparison between Finger print pattern and Dental caries in 29

Third generation
16 Comparison between lip print pattern and Dental caries in 30
Third generation

17 Comparison between palatal rugae pattern(shape) and Dental 30

caries

18 Comparison between palatal rugae pattern(Unification) and 30

Dental caries

19 Dental caries in various finger print pattern in Third 31

generation

20 Dental caries in various lip print pattern in Third generation 31

21 Dental caries in palatal rugae pattern(shape) in Third 31

generation

22 Dental caries in palatal rugae pattern(unification) in Third 31

generation

23 Correlation of dental caries with various parameters 32

24 Comparison of mean dental caries score between the gender 32

25 Comparison of mean dental caries score between the gender in 32

each generation

26 Correlation of mean dental caries score with repetition pattern 33

of various parameters
 LIST OF GRAPHS

S.NO TITTLE PAGE NO.

1. Mean age (in years) in each generation 34

2. Frequency distribution of gender (in %) 34

3 Frequency distribution of finger prints (in %) 35

4 Frequency distribution of lip prints (in %) 35

5 Frequency distribution of palatal rugae shape (in %) 36

6 Frequency distribution of palatal rugae unification (in %) 36

7 Repetition pattern for finger prints (in %) 37

8 Repetition pattern for lip prints (in %) 37

9 Repetition pattern for palatal rugae shape (in %) 38

10 Repetition pattern for palatal rugae unification (in %) 38

11 Mean dental caries in each generation 39

12 Mean age (in years) in each generation 39

13 Mean dental caries for each gender in each generation 40

14 Mean caries score in each finger print pattern 40

15 Mean caries score in each lip print pattern 41

16 Mean caries score in each palatal rugae shape 41

17 Mean dental caries in each palatal rugae unification 42

 INTRODUCTION

According to (FDI) Federation Dentaire Internationale, Forensic odontology can be defined

as a branch of dentistry which deals with appropriate handling and examination of dental

evidence and with the proper evaluation and presentation of dental findings in the interest of

justice”.1

Humans identification is prerequisite for personal, social and legal reason. The most

common techniques used for this process till date is based on dental, finger prints, and DNA

comparison2. The dental identification represents the most reliable scientific method in mass

disasters with almost 75% of success rate. Likewise, even lip prints and palatal rugae patterns

are considered to be unique to an individual and hence, hold the potential for individual

identification.3

For more than one hundred years, Fingerprints have been the gold standard for personal

identification within the forensic community. The development of dermatoglyphic patterns

begins to develop in the 6–7th week of gestation and is complete by the 20–24th week of

gestation.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Fig1:Relationship between volar pads and finger ridge pattern

2
 INTRODUCTION

Dermatoglyphics is derived from a Greek word, derma means skin and glyph means

carving .The dermal ridges develop in relation to the volar pads, they are formed by the 6th

week of gestation and reach a maximum size between 12th and 13th weeks4.

The height and contour of the volar pad give rise to various patterns of finger print. a low pad

with little disruption of the lines giving an arch pattern, a high pad giving a whorl pattern,

and a pad of intermediate height producing a loop pattern.

Further, a pad with a steeper side on the radial aspect of the fingertip, will lead to an ulnar

loop5. These patterns are formed by the raised papillary ridges on fingertips, containing rows

of pores that connect to sweat glands.

After many years of research, it has been established that papillary ridges on the fingers and

palms of the hands, the soles and toes of the feet, remain in their original state throughout

life, unless their symmetry is permanently disturbed by some deep-seated injury 6. These

ridges are formed during the first few months of fetal life and remain immutable during

lifetime and even after death. They seem to have the peculiar property of outlasting every

other recognizable feature of the body.7

Galton calculated that probability of finding identical finger prints was 1 in 64

millions7.Dermatoglyphics is considered to be a sensitive indicator of intrauterine anomalies

both systemic as well as dental and known to be one of the best diagnostic tools for genetic

disorders8.

Cheiloscopy, the study of lip prints, is an upcoming tool and can be used for individual

identification due to their unique nature. Lip prints remain the same throughout life and are

uninfluenced by injuries, diseases or environmental changes.9

Similarly, Palatal rugae have also been shown to be highly individualistic and remain

consistent throughout life. They are well protected in the oral cavity vault i.e. surrounded by

3
 INTRODUCTION

cheek, lips, buccal pad of fat and tongue ,which gives protection in cases of incineration or

trauma. Once formed, they do not undergo any change except in length, due to normal

growth, and remain in the same position throughout individual's life time. Diseases, chemical

aggression, or trauma do not seem to change the palatal grooves in order to establish a

person’s identity.10

Heredity can be defined as transmission of characteristics from parents to offspring. Traits

such as body size, hair color, skin color, eye color, etc. are known to be inherited.11

The unique pattern among individuals make it questionable whether they are completely

unique in a family lineage .3

Dental caries is a chronic disease prevalent worldwide. At present, Dactyloscopy,

Cheiloscopy and Rugoscopy is now beginning to prove itself as an extremely useful tool for

preliminary investigations to resolve many biomedical problems.

The basis of considering dermatoglyphic, Cheiloscopy and rugoscopy patterns as a genetic

marker for dental caries is that the epithelium of finger buds as well as the epithelium of

primary palate, lips and the enamel have an ectodermal origin, and all develop at the same

time of intrauterine life.

This means that the genetic message contained in the genome-normal or abnormal is

deciphered during this period and is also reflected by finger print, lip print and palatal rugae

pattern.12,13,14.Mariani had a similar result with HLA-DR3 associated with increased enamel

defects and HLADR5,7 associated with a reduced frequency of enamel defects.15

4
 INTRODUCTION

In view of this, the present study is intended to assess the repetition of lip prints, finger prints,

palatal rugae and the inheritance of dental caries among three successive generations of

families.

5
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

AIM:

The present study aims to assess the inheritance of fingerprints, lip prints, and palatal rugae

pattern among three successive generations in a family and their relationship with dental

caries predilection.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

• To study the pattern of finger prints, lip prints and palatal rugae among individuals of

three successive generations in families.

• To evaluate the diversity or repetition of these patterns in a family hierarchy.

• To assess the relationship between these patterns and dental caries

• To establish a possible correlation between the inheritance of these patterns and dental

caries predilection in a family hierarchy.

• To determine the use of finger prints, lip prints and palatal rugae pattern to predict

the genetic basis of dental caries.

RESEARCH QUESTION OR HYPOTHESIS

HYPOTHESIS (NULL):

There is no inheritance of finger prints, lip prints and palatal rugae patterns among the three

successive generations of families. There seems to be no relationship between the inheritance

of these patterns with dental caries predilection.

6
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

HYPOTHESIS (ALTERNATE):

There seems to be inheritance of finger prints, lip prints and palatal rugae patterns among

three successive generations of families. A relationship is present between the inheritance of

these patterns with dental caries predilection.

7
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Devi et al (2007)16 evaluated lip print pattern in 25 families of two generations and

determined the lip print pattern based on the numerical superiority of properties of lines in

each segment and found a resemblance between parents and offsprings of about 37.66%.

A study was carried out by Sharma et al.(2010)17, to determine if there was any significant

correlation between salivary bacterial interactions, dermatoglyphics, and dental caries. The

study was conducted on 90 patients with 45 control and 45 subjects . Results revealed that the

control group had increased frequency of whorl pattern and higher salivary pH with

decreased Streptococcus mutans level whereas the subjects with ≥5 caries teeth had

decreased frequency of whorl pattern , decreased salivary pH and increased Streptococcus

mutans level .

Vats Y et al(2011)18., studied 1399 individuals belonging to 80 jats families, 80 brahmin

families and 60 scheduled caste families of two successive generations belonging to age

group of 8-60 years. The results showed that maximum resemblance to mothers and

daughters of Brahmin families and minimum resemblance to father and son of scheduled

caste families in the upper left quadrant of the lip.

A study by Madan N et al (2011)19 in Handprints of caries-free children, especially females,

showed maximum ulnar loops. The caries group showed maximum occurrence of whorls

(r=2:1), which were more prevalent in females on the left hand 3rd digit than in males where

the whorls were found on the right hand 3rd digit, and also low total ridge count, especially in

males.

Galaut P et al.,(2012)20 carried out a study on 90 individuals of 30 families. Among that, 25

families found a statistically significant(p<0.05) resemblance of lip prints of off springs with

their parents. 14 families showed resemblance of child lip prints with their father, 11 families

showed resemblance of child lip prints with their mother.

8
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A study conducted in 100 school children with age group 6-16years by Bhat

et.al(2012)21showed the frequency of whorls was found to be more in caries group and the

frequency of loops more in caries free group. A statistically significant difference was

observed between caries and caries free group with respect to loops and whorls in right and

left hand.

A study by Sengupta AB (2013)22 was undertaken to find out the dermatoglyphic pattern

variations in dental caries on 300 Bengalee children of Kolkata between the age group of 4-

14 years. The results revealed the significant increase in caries with increased total finger

ridge count (TRFC) and absolute finger ridge count (AFRC) on fingers.

Agrabat D et al. (2014)23 conducted a study to analyze the relation between dermatoglyphic

pattern variations and dental caries in 200 school going children of Ahmedabad of age about

5-12years. The results showed a significant relationship between whorl pattern and dental

caries however, a negative correlation was observed for ulnar loops, radial loops and dental

caries.

A study by Vijendar V et al (2015)24 was undertaken to investigate and analyse the

significances of dermatoglyphics in predicating the susceptibility of individual to develop

dental caries. The study was conducted on 100 children of age group 5-12years and was

divided into caries active and caries free group. It showed an increase in frequency of

whorls and decrease in frequency of loops in caries active group when compared to caries

free group. On the other hand caries free group showed decrease in frequency of whorls and

increase in frequency of loops which was statistically significant ( p<0.05).

Madhusudhan et al(2015)25 conducted a study to assess if any relationship can be

established between thumb print patterns, lip print patterns with dental caries

respectively.The results showed prevalence of dental caries was increased among the subjects

9
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

with loop pattern (67.0%) compared to other thumb print patterns. Prevalence of dental

caries was higher among subjects with branched groove pattern (71.3%) compared to other

lip print patterns.

Patel NR et al (2015)26.,carried out a cross-sectional study on 30 families assessed the

palatal rugae patterns using alginate impression material . Parents and offspring were selected

for the study.Among 30 families , 29 families showed a statistically significant resemblance

of rugae pattern of offspring with their parents.

A study conducted by Chinmaya BR et al (2016)27 to determine the relationship between

fingerprint patterns and dental caries. The results revealed the dental caries experience was

highest among students with whorl pattern (µ= 2.82) followed by the central pocket loop (µ=

2.60) and least among students with loop pattern (µ= 1.58). Twin loop pattern and dental

caries showed significant relationship (µ= 2.41) however, a negative correlation was

observed for loops and arches in relation to dental caries.

George R et al(2016)28., conducted a study on Malaysian population and assessed the

resemblance of lip prints between parents and offsprings on 31 families and found a 58.06%

of positive correlation in lip print patterns among the family members of two generations.

The lip print pattern highest in the study group was type I (29.84%) and the least found was

type V (1.61%).

A study by Mala S et al(2017)3., assessed the pattern self repetition of finger prints, lip prints

and palatal rugae of three successive generation in 10 families of age group 7-80 years

showed 30% repetition of thumb print pattern in all three generation, and 10 % repetition of

lip prints in all three generation.

Nikmah I et al(2017)29., conducted a study on five mixed family of Chinese-javenese ethnic

including two or three generations , javenese ethnic had a whorl pattern(plain whorl and

10
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

double loop whorl) as a specific marker, whereas the Chinese ethnic had radial loop and

tented arch as a specific marker which are expressed in both parents and offsprings.

Kasuma N et al(2018)30.,conducted a study on 12 families , 48 samples to determine the

palatal rugae patterns in a family lineage at Indonesia . The rugae patterns were recorded

using alginate impression material. The results revealed a positive correlation between either

parents and their offsprings with statistically significant results.

Reddy KV et al(2018)31 conducted a study on 300 children of age group 6-12years and

evaluated the caries experience and their finger print patterns. The results showed that whorl

pattern was found to be more in caries group and loop pattern more in caries-free group.

11
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prior to the commencement of the study, ethical approval was obtained from the institutional

review board of Best dental science college, Madurai, Tamilnadu.

SOURCE OF DATA: This descriptive, cross - sectional study will be carried out by

collecting finger prints, lip prints and palatal rugae images along with recording the

prevalence of dental caries for three successive generations (Grandparents, parents, grand

children) belonging to same family from local population of Madurai, Tamilnadu.

STUDY SAMPLE SIZE:

The study comprises of 3 groups:

Group I

50 individuals of first generation (Grandparents) of age group 50 to 89 years.

Group II

50 individuals of second generation (Parents) of age group 35 to 68 years.

Group III

50 individuals of third generation (Children) of age group 5 to 19 years.

FINGER PRINT RECORDING PROCEDURE:

Ethical clearance was obtained before study from the ethical review board of the institute.

Permission obtained through informed written consent forms .Participants are asked to wash

their hands cleanly in order to remove debris. “The photographic method” is a convenient,

easy, time consuming, more effective, better clarity, perfect calibration and economical is

employed. High quality images will be obtained using a high resolution Digital SLR camera

(Canon D1200-18 MP) under well-lit surface. A scale is placed near the hand and the camera

12
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

is adjusted to obtain better clarity images. If any spot of blur is identified, the images are

retaken immediately. The images are analysed by using ‘Image viewing software’(Adobe®

Photoshop® 7.0 software), that provides perfect zoom and tools for analysing the pattern.

The fingerprints were categorized according to the classification of Henry in 1904 7, which

divides the fingerprints into eight main groups:

Plain arch

Tented arch

Ulnar loop

Radial loop

Double loop whorl

Plain whorl

Central pocket loop whorl

Accidental loop whorl

13
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

CLASSIFICATION OF FINGER PRINTS

LIP PRINT RECORDING PROCEDURE:

Participants lips are wiped with a sterile guaze. Instead of the traditional lipstick method, a

more convenient and easier method of data collection i.e., digital photography was used. The

subjects are made to stand erect with the head positioned in Frankfurt plane. From a fixed

distance, lips of the participant will be photographed using a DSLR camera(Canon 1200D-18

MP). The middle part of the lower lip will be considered for classification as this fragment is

14
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

usually visible in any trace and most frequently found at the crime scene. The image obtained

by photographic method is analysed by using ‘Image viewing software’(Adobe®

Photoshop® 7.0 software), that provide perfect zoom and tools for analysing the pattern.

The classification scheme proposed by Tsuchihashi (1974)9 will be used to analyze the lip

prints:

Type I: Clear-cut vertical grooves

Type II: Branched grooves

Type III: Intersected grooves

Type IV: Reticular grooves

Type V: Grooves do not fall into any of the above categories and cannot be differentiated

morphologically (undetermined).

15
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

CLASSIFICATION OF LIP PRINTS

16
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

PALATAL RUGAE RECORDING PROCEDURE

Participants are asked to rinse their mouth to remove debris. Under particular conditions,

high-resolution digital image of the palatal rugae will be taken using a Digital SLR camera

(Canon 1200D-18 MP) by placing an intra-oral mirror. The image obtained by photographic

method is analysed by using ‘Image viewing software’(Adobe® Photoshop® 7.0 software) ,

that provide perfect zoom and tools for analysing the pattern and recorded according to the

classification given by Thomas and Kotze(1983) 8. The shapes of individual primary rugae are

classified into four major types: curved, wavy, straight, and bifurcated. Straight type of

palatal rugae presents as straight line from their origin to insertion. The curved type has

crescent shape with a gentle curve. Wavy rugae are serpentine in shape and rugae that

showed definite branching were bifurcated type. In addition, nonspecific rugae pattern is

observed, which does not fall in any of the mentioned classes.1

CLASSIFCATION OF PALATAL RUGAE PATTERNS

17
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

DENTAL CARIES RECORDING PROCEDURE:

For collection of data, a proforma will be used consisting of demographic details, brief case

history regarding sugar consumption, oral hygiene methods and fluoride exposure, and is

recorded with the help of mouth mirror and probe using DMFS index given by WHO 2013.

INCLUSION CRITERIA:

• Lips free from any pathology, having normal transition zone between mucosa and the

skin .

• Palate free from any pathology and deformity.

• Thumb finger free from any pathology and deformity.

18
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

• Finger prints, Lip prints and Palatal rugae are recorded for age groups:

First generation: 50-80 yrs

Second generation: 25-45 yrs

Third generation: 8- 18 yrs

 Both males and females are included.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA:

• Subjects with congenital abnormalities /malformation.

• Subjects with surgeries like orthognathic or surgery for cleft palate, bony and soft

tissue protuberance, active lesions, deformity of scars and trauma to the palate.

STATISTICAL METHODS:

The information collected regarding all the selected cases will be recorded in a Master

Chart in Excel sheet. Data analysis will be done with the help of computer using SPSS

statistical package- Version 17 and the software in socscistatistics.com

Using this software ,chi square test and spearmanns correlation test was done for

qualitative variables and ‘p’ values are calculated.

19
 ARMAMENTARIUM

DIGITAL IMAGE OF VARIOUS PATTERNS ARE TAKEN USING DIGITAL SLR

CAMERA (CANON 1200D-18 MP)

PHOTOGRAPHIC OCCLUSAL MIRROR TO RECORD THE PATTERNS OF

PALATAL RUGAE

20
 ARMAMENTARIUM

INSTRUMENTS TO EXAMINE DENTAL CARIES

21
 RESULTS

Fifty families included all three generations comprised of 51(34%) males and 99(66%)

females as shown in (Graph 1). The first-generation participants’ age group ranged from 50

to 89 years, second generation participants’ age group ranged from 35 to 68 years, and third

generation participants’ ranged from 5 to 19 years (Table 1 and Graph 2).

The distribution of finger print patterns in our study include ulnar loop(42%), radial

loop(4%), central loop(4%), plain whorl(31.33%), double loop whorl(19.33%) and accidental

loop(0%) shown in (Graph 3). Similarly the lip print patterns distributed in our study were

vertical-I(37.3%), vertical-I’(7%), branched (13.3%), reticular(22.7%) and intersected

pattern(20%) as shown in (Graph 4) . The distribution of palatal rugae patterns (shape) in the

present study were straight(12.7%), curved(40.7%) and wavy(46.7%) pattern(Graph 5).

Likewise, palatal rugae pattern (Unification) present in our study was converging(6%) and

diverging (94%) patterns(Graph 6).

Among these families, 32% showed repetition of the pattern of fingerprints in all the three

generations. 24% percent showed repetition in two consecutive(1,2) generations while, 34%

percent showed repetition in another two consecutive(2,3) generations. 12% showed

repetition in alternative(1,3) generations and 2% showed no repetition in any generation

(Table 2 and Graph 7). By intergeneration analysis of generation (1,3) and (2,3) there was a

statistically significant relationship (p value-0.049) ( Table 3).

The pattern of lip prints in the middle 1/3rd of lower lip showed, 32% showed repetition in all

the three generation.4% showed repetition in alternative(1,3) generations, and 22% showed

repetition in consecutive(1,2) generations while 34% showed repetition in another

consecutive(2,3) generations and 8% showed no similarity in any generation (Table 2 and

Graph 8). So by intergeneration analysis of generation (1,2), (1,3) and (2,3) was statistically

significant( P value <0.001) (Table 4).

22
 RESULTS

Among the pattern of palatal rugae(shape), 54% showed repetition in all the three

generations, 16% showed repetition in two consecutive(1,2) generations, 22% showed

repetition in another two consecutive(2,3) generations 4% showed repetition in

alternative(1,3) generations, and 4% showed no repetition in any generation at all(Table 2

and Graph 9). By intergenerational analysis of generation (1,2), (1,3) , (2,3) was statistically

significant.(p value- 0.001) (Table 5).

Among the patterns of palatal rugae(unification), 92% showed repetition in all the three

generation, 6% showed repetition in two consecutive(2,3) generation while 2% showed

repetition in another two consecutive generation(1,2) as shown in ( table 2 and Graph 10).

By intergenerational analysis of generation (1,2), (1,3) , (2,3) was statistically insignificant

(Table 6).

In the first generation, Among all thumb prints, ulnar loop pattern (40%) was commonly

found whereas accidental loop and central pocket loop occupied the least (2% each).

Prevalence of dental caries was higher among the subjects with plain whorl pattern

(mean=6.1) and lowest in subjects with central pocket loop (mean=2.0) which is shown in

(Table 7A )

Among all lip patterns, vertical pattern was commonly found (34%), whereas partial vertical

pattern occupied the least (4%). Prevalence of dental caries was higher among subjects with

intersected pattern (mean=5.3) and lowest in branched pattern (mean=4.0), shown in (Table

7B )

Among palatal rugae patterns, curved pattern (48%) was more commonly evident among first

generation whereas straight pattern (6%) occupied the least. Prevalence of dental caries was

higher among subjects with straight pattern (mean=6.8) and lowest in curved pattern

(mean=4.1), shown in (Table 7C)

23
 RESULTS

Diverging pattern (96%) was highly appreciated when compared to converging pattern (4%)

among palatal rugae unification of first generation. Converging pattern showed high caries

prevalence with mean 9.5, shown in (Table 7D)

In the second generation among all thumb prints, ulnar loop pattern (44%) was commonly

found whereas central pocket loop occupied the least (2%). Prevalence of dental caries was

higher among the subjects with plain whorl pattern (mean=2.8) and lowest in subjects with

radial loop (mean=2.5) which is shown in (Table 8A)

Among all lip patterns, vertical pattern was commonly found (40%), whereas partial vertical

occupied the least (8%). Prevalence of dental caries was higher among subjects with

branched pattern (mean=3.1) and lowest in partial vertical pattern (mean=1.0), shown in

(Table 8B)

Among palatal rugae patterns, curved pattern (40%) was more commonly evident among

second generation whereas straight pattern (14%) occupied the least. Prevalence of dental

caries was higher among subjects with curved pattern (mean=3.2) and lowest in wavy pattern

(mean=2.1), shown in (Table 8C)

Diverging pattern (92%) was highly appreciated when compared to converging pattern (8%)

among palatal rugae unification of first generation. Converging pattern showed high caries

prevalence with mean 3.0, shown in (Table 8D)

In the third generation among all thumb prints, ulnar loop pattern (42%) was commonly

found whereas central pocket loop occupied the least (4%). Prevalence of dental caries was

higher among the subjects with radial loop pattern (mean=2.5) and lowest in subjects with

central loop pocket (mean=0.5) which is shown in (Table 9A)

Among all lip patterns, vertical pattern was commonly found (38%), whereas partial vertical

occupied the least (8%). Prevalence of dental caries was higher among subjects with vertical

pattern (mean=1.9) and lowest in reticular pattern (mean=0.9), shown in (Table 9B)

24
 RESULTS

Among palatal rugae patterns, wavy pattern (54%) was more commonly evident among

second generation whereas straight pattern (12%) occupied the least. Prevalence of dental

caries was higher among subjects with straight pattern (mean=3.2) and lowest in wavy pattern

(mean=1.2), shown in (Table 9C)

Diverging pattern (94%) was highly appreciated when compared to converging pattern (6%)

among palatal rugae unification of first generation. Converging pattern showed high caries

prevalence with mean 2.3, shown in (Table 9D)

In our study on comparing 3 generations , the prevalence of dental caries was higher among

the first generation subjects with mean 4.52 (Graph 11)

Among all generation,in thumb print pattern the prevalence of dental caries was high among

radial loop and ulnar loop (Table10 and Graph 13). Likewise in lip print pattern, the partial

vertical and intersected pattern shows increased prevalence of dental caries (Table 11 and

Graph 14). Straight and curved pattern, converging unification showed increased

prevalences of dental caries but all the patterns in comparison with dental caries showed

statistically insignificant relationship (Table 12, Graph 15 and Graph 16).

On comparison of dental caries with gender, females had a higher prevalence of dental

caries(3.1±3.4). shown in (Table 15 and Graph 12)

Likewise on comparing dental caries with gender in each generation showed increased dental

caries prevalence in the first generation females with mean (4.7±4.3) (Table 16 and Graph

12) . And the correlation of repetition pattern with mean dental caries was statistically

insignificant shown in (Table 17).

25
 RESULTS

Table 1.Demographic Details :

Generation of families Age criteria

First generation 50-89 years

Second Generation 35-68 Years

Third Generation 5-19 Years

Table 2.Repetition pattern for all 3 parameters in three generation

Finger Palatal rugae Palatal rugae

Repetition pattern Lip print
print shape unification
No repetition 1 (2%) 4 (8%) 2 (4%) 0
Generation 1, 2 12 (24%) 11 (22%) 8 (16%) 0
Generation 2,3 15 (30%) 17 (34%) 11 (22%) 3 (6%)
Generation1,3 6 (12%) 2 (4%) 2 (4%) 1 (2%)
All 3 generation 16 (32%) 16 (32%) 27 (54%) 46 (92%)

Table 3.Repetition pattern of finger print in three generation

Repetition Pattern in generations P-Value

Generation 1 & 2 and Generation 2 & 3 0.652 Not Significant

Generation 1 & 2 and Generation 1 & 3 0.193 Not Significant
Generation 1 & 3 and Generation 2 & 3 0.049 Significant*
p≤0.05 is significant*

Table 4.Repetition pattern of lip print in three generation :

Repetition Pattern in generations P-Value

Generation 1 & 2 and Generation 2 & 3 0.265 Not Significant

Generation 1 & 2 and Generation 1 & 3 0.004 Significant*
Generation 1 & 3 and Generation 2 & 3 < 0.001 Significant*
p≤0.05 is significant*
Table 5.Repetition pattern of Palatal rugae in three generation (Shape):

Repetition Pattern in generations P-Value

26
 RESULTS

Generation 1 & 2 and Generation 2 & 3 0.61 Not Significant

Generation 1 & 2 and Generation 1 & 3 0.027 Significant*
Generation 1 & 3 and Generation 2 & 3 0.004 Significant*
p≤0.05 is significant

Table 6.Repetition pattern of Palatal rugae in three generation (Unification) :

Repetition Pattern in generations P-Value

Generation 1 & 2 and Generation 2 & 3 0.061 Not Significant

Generation 1 & 2 and Generation 1 & 3 0.25 Not Significant
Generation 1 & 3 and Generation 2 & 3 0.184 Not Significant

FIRST GENERATION
Table 7A Comparison between Finger print pattern & dental caries of first generation:
S.NO Finger print N Dental caries 95% CI for Mean

Mean Standard Lower Upper

deviation bound bound
1 Ulnar loop 20(40%) 3.5 2.8 2.2 4.8

2 Radial loop 2(4%) 3.0 1.4 -9.7 15.7

3 Plain whorl 16(32%) 6.1 5.1 3.4 8.8

4 Double 10(20%) 4.7 3.8 2.0 7.4

Loop
5 Central loop 1(2%) 2.000 0 0 0
pockect
6 Accidental 1(1%) 3.0 0 0 0
loop

Table 7B:Comparison between lip print pattern and Dental caries of first generation:

S.NO Lip print N Dental caries 95% CL for mean

Mean Standard Lower Upper
deviation bound bound
1 Type I-Vertical 17(34% 4.1 4.5 1.7 6.4
)

3 Type II-Partial 2(4%) 5.0 5.7 -45.8 55.8

vertical
27
 RESULTS

4 Type II- 5(10%) 4.0 4.2 -1.3 9.3

Branched
5 Type III- 12(24% 5.3 3.4 3.0 7.4
Intersected )

6 Type IV- 14(28% 4.6 3.8 2.4 6.7

Reticular )

Table 7C. Comparison between palatal rugae pattern and Dental caries of first
generation:
S.No Palatal Rugae N Dental Caries 95% CL for mean
Pattern(Shape
)
Mean Standard Lower Upper
Deviation bound bound
1 Straight 6 (12%) 6.8 4.2 2.4 11.2

2 Wavy 20 (40%) 4.3 3.4 2.7 5.9

3 Curved 24 (48%) 4.1 4.1 2.3 5.9

4 Circular 0 (0%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 7D:Comparison between palatal rugae pattern(Unification) and Dental caries of

first generation:

S.No Palatal Rugae N Dental Caries 95% CL for mean

Pattern(uni)
Mean Standard Upper Lower
Deviation bound bound
1 Converging 2 (4%) 9.5 6.4 -47.7 66.7

2 Diverging 48 (96%) 4.3 3.7 3.2 5.4

SECOND GENERATION

Table 8A.Comparison between Finger print pattern and Dental caries of second
generation :

28
 RESULTS

S.N Finger print N Dental caries 95% CL for mean

O
Mean Standard Upper Lower
deviation bound bound
1 Ulnar loop 22 (44%) 2.6 2.0 1.7 3.5

2 Radial loop 2 (4%) 2.5 0.7 -3.8 8.8

3 Plain whorl 17 (34%) 2.8 3.0 1.3 4.4

4 Double Loop 8 (16%) 2.7 2.4 .6 4.8

5 Accidental Loop 0 (0%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 Central loop 1 (2%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
pockect

Table 8B. Comparison between lip print pattern and Dental caries of second
generation:

S.NO Lip print N Dental caries 95% CL for mean

Mean Standard Lower Upper
deviation bound bound
1 Type I- 20 (40%) 2.7 2.0 1.7 3.6
Vertical
2 Type II-Partial 4 (8%) 1.0 1.1 -0.8 2.8
vertical
3 Type II- 7 (14%) 3.1 2.6 0.7 5.5
Branched
4 Type III- 9 (18%) 2.7 3.6 -0.04 5.5
Intersected
5 Type IV- 10 (20%) 2.9 2.3 1.2 4.5
Reticular

Table 8C. Comparison between palatal rugae pattern and Dental caries of second
generation:
S.No Palatal Rugae N Dental Caries 95% CL for mean
Pattern(Shape)
Mean Standard Lower Upper
29
 RESULTS

Deviation bound bound

1 Straight 7 (14%) 2.8 2.4 0.5 0.5

2 Wavy 23 (46%) 2.1 1.7 1.4 2.9

3 Curved 20 (40%) 3.2 3.0 1.7 4.6

4 Circular 0 (0%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 8D. Comparison between palatal rugae pattern(Unification) and Dental caries of
second generation:
S.N Palatal Rugae N Dental Caries 95% CL for mean
o Pattern(uni)
Mean Standard Lower bound Upper bound
Deviatio
n
1 Converging 4 (8%) 3.0 2.4 -0.8 6.8

2 Diverging 46 2.6 2.4 1.9 3.3

(92%)

THIRD GENERATION
Table 9A. Comparison between Finger print pattern and Dental caries of third
generation :
S.NO Finger print N Dental caries 95% CL for mean
Mean Standard Upper Lower
deviation bound bound
1 Ulnar loop 21 (42%) 2.0 2.5 0.8 3.2

2 Radial loop 2 (4%) 2.5 0.7 -3.8 8.8

3 Plain whorl 14 (28%) 1.0 1.6 0.1 1.9

4 Double 11 (22%) 1.3 1.8 0.1 2.6

Loop
5 Accidental 0 (0%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Loop
6 Central loop 2 (4%) 0.5 0.7 -5.8 6.8
pockect
Table 9B. Comparison between lip print pattern and Dental caries:

S.NO Lip print N Dental caries 95% CL for mean

Mean Standard Upper Lower
deviation bound bound

30
 RESULTS

1 Type I- 19 (38%) 1.9 2.6 0.6 3.2

Vertical
2 Type II- 4 (8%) 1.7 1.7 -0.9 4.5
Partial
vertical
3 Type II- 8 (16%) 1.5 1.9 -0.1 3.11
Branched
4 Type III- 9 (18%) 1.4 1.9 -0.05 2.9
Intersected
5 Type IV- 10 (20%) 0.9 1.3 -0.08 1.9
Reticular
6 Type V- 0 (0%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Undetermined

Table 9C. Comparison between palatal rugae pattern(Shape) and Dental caries:
S.No Palatal Rugae Dental Caries 95% CL for mean
Pattern(Shape)
Mean Standard Upper bound Lower bound
Deviation
1 Straight 6 (12%) 3.2 3.6 -0.6 7.0

2 Wavy 27 1.2 1.4 0.6 1.7

(54%)
3 Curved 17 1.6 2.1 0.4 2.7
(34%)
4 Circular 0 (0%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 9D. Comparison between palatal rugae pattern(Unification) and Dental caries:
S.No Palatal Rugae N Dental Caries 95% CL for mean
Pattern
(unification)
Mean Standard Upper bound Lower
Deviation bound
1 Converging 3 (6%) 2.3 3.2 -5.6 10.3

2 Diverging 47(94%) 2.0 2.04 2.1 2.1

Table 10: Dental caries in various finger print pattern:

Finger print pattern Total no. of cases Caries present

Ulnar loop 63 49(78%)

31
 RESULTS

Radial loop 6 6(100%)

Central loop 4 2(50%)
Plain whorl 47 35(75%)
Double loop whorl 29 21(71%)
Accidental loop 1 1(100%)

Table 11: Dental caries in various lip print pattern:

Lip print pattern Total no.of cases Caries present

Vertical-I 56 42(75%)

Vertical-I’ 10 7(70%)

Branched 20 16(80%)

Reticular 34 25(75%)

Intersected 30 24(80%)

Table 12: Dental caries in palatal rugae pattern(shape):

Palatal rugae Total no. of cases Caries present

pattern(Shape)
Straight 19 15 (79%)

Wavy 70 51(73%)

Curved 61 48(79%)

32
 RESULTS

Table 13: Dental caries in palatal rugae pattern(Unification):

Palatal rugae Total no. of cases Caries present

pattern(Unification)
Converging 9 7 (78%)

Diverging 141 107(76%)

Table 14:Correlation of dental caries with various parameters

Palatal rugae Palatal rugae

Finger Print Lip print
shape unification

Correlation
Coefficient ( r 0.005 0.057 -0.029 -0.083
value)
p value 0.954 0.489 0.725 0.312

r value and p value obtained from Spearman's correlation

p≤0.05 is significant

Table 15: Comparison of mean dental caries score between the gender

95% CI for Mean

Std.
Gender N Mean t value p value Lower Upper
Deviation
Bound Bound
Male 51 2.5 2.6
-1.30 0.19 -1.63 .33
Female 99 3.1 3.4

33
 RESULTS

Table 16:Comparison of mean dental caries score between the gender in each
generation

95% CI for
Std. t p Mean
Generation Gender N Mean
Deviation value value Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Male 17 4.1 3.2
1 -0.57 0.56 -2.74 1.5
Female 33 4.7 4.3
2 Male 17 1.8 1.7 -1.93 0.06 -2.46 0.05
Female 33 3.0 2.6
Male 17 1.4 2.0
3 -0.22 0.82 -1.38 1.11
Female 33 1.6 2.1

Table 17:Correlation of mean dental caries score with repetition pattern of various
parameters

Palatal rugae Palatal rugae

Finger Print Lip print
shape unification

Correlation
Coefficient ( r value)
-0.23 0.096 .087 -.19

p value 0.11 0.51 0.54 0.18

34
 GRAPHS

GRAPH 1

Frequency distribution of gender (in %)

34 Male
Female

66

GRAPH 2

Mean age (in years) in each generation

70
60
50
Age in years

40 65.42
30 41.38 15.62
20
10
0
1 2 3
Generation

GRAPH 3
35
 GRAPHS

Frequency distribution of finger prints (in %)

19.33 0.67

42 Ulnar loop
Radial loop
Central loop
Plain whorl
Double loop whorl
Accidental loop
31.33
4

2.67

GRAPH 4

Frequency distribution of lip prints (in %)

20

37.33

Vertical - I
Vertical - 1'
Branched
Reticular
Intersected
22.67

13.33
6.67

GRAPH 5

36
 GRAPHS

Frequency distribution of palatal rugae shape (in %)

12.67

40.67

Straight
Wavy
Curved

46.67

GRAPH 6

Frequency distribution of palatal rugae unification (in %)

Converging
Diverging

94

GRAPH 7

37
 GRAPHS

Repetition pattern for finger prints (in %)

32
35 30
30 24
25
20
12
15
Percent

10
2
5
0
n 2 3 ,3 on
tio 1, 2, 1
ti on on ati
e on ti ne
r
ep ati ati ra
r r
ne
r
ne ge
No ne e e l3
Ge G G Al

GRAPH 8

Repetition pattern for lip prints (in %)

34
32
35
30
22
25
20
15
Percent

8
10 4
5
0
on 1,
2
2,
3 ,3 on
titi n n1 ati
p e on tio ati
o
ne
r
re r ati r a er ge
No ne ne n
l3
Ge Ge Ge Al

GRAPH 9

38
 GRAPHS

Repetition pattern for palatal rugae shape (in %)

54
60
50
40
30 22
16
Percent

20
4 4
10
0
on 1,
2
2,
3 ,3 on
titi n1 ati
e on on o r
re
p ati ati r ati ne
r
ne
r
ne ge
No ne e l3
Ge Ge G Al

GRAPH 10

Repetition pattern for palatal rugae unification (in %)

92
100
90
80
70
60
50
Percent

40
30
20 6 2
10 0 0
0
n 2 3 ,3 on
tio 1, 2, 1
ti on on ati
pe on ti ne
r
re ati ati ra
r
ne
r
ne ge
No ne e e l3
Ge G G Al

GRAPH 11
39
 GRAPHS

Mean dental caries in each generation

5
4.5
4
Mean caries score

3.5
3
4.52
2.5
2
2.68
1.5
1.56
1
0.5
0
1 2 3
Generation

GRAPH 12

Mean dental caries for each gender in each generation

4.73
5
4.5 4.12
4
3.09 3.14
Mean caries score

3.5
3 2.49
Male
2.5 1.88
Female
2 1.471.61
1.5
1
0.5
0
1 2 3 Total
Generation

GRAPH 13

40
 GRAPHS

Mean caries score in each finger print pattern

3.43
3.5 3
2.9
2.71 2.67
3
2.5
Mean caries score

2
1.5
0.75
1
0.5
0
Ulnar loop Radial loop Central Plain whorl Double Accidental
loop loop whorl loop
Finger print patterns

GRAPH 14

Mean caries score in each lip print pattern

3.37
3.5 3
2.86
3 2.7
Mean caries score

2.5 2.1
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Vertical - I Vertical - 1' Branched Reticular Intersected
Lip print pattern

GRAPH 15

41
 GRAPHS

Mean caries score in each palatal rugae shape

4.5
4
Mean caries score

3.5
3
2.5 4.21
2 3.12
1.5 2.4
1
0.5
0
Straight Wavy Curved
Palatal rugae shape

GRAPH 16

Mean dental caries in each palatal rugae unification

4.5
4
Mean caries score

3.5
3
4.22
2.5
2 2.84
1.5
1
0.5
0
Converging Diverging

42
 FINGER PRINT PATTERN OF THREE GENERATIONS

First generation

Second generation
Third generation

43
FINGER PRINT IMAGE ANALYSIS USING ADOBE PHOTOSHOP

44
 LIP PRINT PATTERN OF THREE GENERATION

First generation

Second generation Third generation

45
IMAGE ANALYSIS OF LIP PRINT PATTERN USING ADOBE
PHOTOSHOP

47
 PALATAL RUGAE PATTERN ANALYSIS OF THREE GENERATIONS

First generation

Second generation Third generation

48
Fig 12: Palatal rugae pattern image analysis using adobe photoshop

49
 DISCUSSION

Establishing a person’s identity can be a difficult and challenging process in forensic

identification. Dental, fingerprints, DNA comparison, radiographs, iris, retinal identification,

facial recognition, finger vein pattern recognition, palm vein pattern recognition are the

commonly used techniques.

In our study, fifty families were assesed for repetitions in finger prints, lip prints and palatal

rugae whereas only 10 families were taken in study by Mala S et al 3.,(2017). Age groups of 3

generations included in our study were almost similar to age group criteria used in study by

Mala S et al3.,(2017).

The type of fingerprints is unique and unalterable and is based on the genetic constitution of

each individual. These dermal patterns once formed remain constant throughout life and also

the fingerprint pattern recordings are accomplished rapidly, inexpensively and without

causing any trauma to the patient. The fingerprints were categorized according to the

classification of Henry in 19047, which divides the fingerprints into eight main groups: plain

arch,tented arch, ulnar loop, radial loop and double loop whorl.

Gaye et al32 (1970) assessed the repetitions in finger prints from first to fourth generations

and found the repetition of patterns from first and second generation wheareas in the present

study, the repetition patterns were analysed from first to third generation. In the present

study, 32% of the families showed finger print pattern repetition in all three generations, 58%

showed repetition in two consecutive generation, 12% showed repetition in alternative

generation and 2% showed no repetition, which were similar to study by Mala S et al 3.,

(2017). So in our study by intergeneration analysis, the repetition pattern of finger print in

generation (1,3) and (2,3) was found to be statistically significant.

The significance of Cheiloscopy in personal identification is that once developed at the 6th

month of intrauterine life they are permanent, unchangeable even after death, and unique to

each person except in monozygotic twins33. The lines and furrows in the form of wrinkles and

50
 DISCUSSION

grooves are the lip prints present in the zone of transition of the human lip between the inner

labial mucosa and outer skin. Lip prints were first noted in 1902 by an eminent

anthropologist, R. Fischer. It was only in 1932, a French person named Edmond Locard

advocated the use of lip prints in personal identification and criminalization. In 1950 Synder

was the first person who suggested the idea of using lip print for identification. The

classification scheme proposed by Tsuchihashi (1974)9 will be used to analyze the lip prints:

Type I: Clear-cut vertical grooves

Type II: Branched grooves

Type III: Intersected grooves

Type IV: Reticular grooves

Type V: Grooves do not fall into any of the above categories and cannot be differentiated

morphologically (undetermined).

In our study ,32% showed repetition in lip print pattern repetition in all three generations,

56% showed repetition in two consecutive generation, 4% showed repetition in alternative

generation and 8% showed no repetition at all which were contrasting to the study by Mala S

et al3.,(2017), whereas study conducted by Devi et al 16 (2007) conducted a study of

inheritance analysis and evaluation of lip prints in 300 individuals (25 families) and found the

presence of hereditary resemblance between parent and offsprings (37.66%). In the present

study , the repetition pattern of lip print in generation (1,2) , (2,3) ,( 1,3) was statistically

significant.

The palatal rugae, the generally transverse ridges situated in the anterior part of the palatine

mucosa, are widely present in mammals, but their biological significance is little understood.

In the human embryo they are relatively prominent, occupying much of the length of the

51
 DISCUSSION

palatal shelves at the time of their elevation but become less prominent during fetal growth

and, from the newborn stage onwards, are confined to the anterior part of the secondary

palate. The palatal rugae are like fingerprints that do not change during the life of an

individual. Palatine rugae are unique and are reasonably stable during the lifetime of an

individual34. In the present study, 54% showed repetition in palatal rugae pattern repetition in

all three generation, 38% showed repetition in two consecutive generation , 4% showed

repetition in alternative generation and 4% showed no repetition at all which were

contradicting to the study by Mala S et al 3.,(2017). In our study the repetition of pattern in

palatal rugae( shape) in generation (1,2) , (1,3) and ( 2,3) was statistically significant.

This is the first study where we have made an attempt of identifying the individual patterns

of fingerprint, lip print, palatal rugae and correlate with dental caries of three consecutive

generations of different families. Dental caries is a microbial disease of the calcified tissues

of the teeth, characterized by demineralization of the inorganic portion and destruction of the

organic substance of the tooth.It is the most prevalent chronic disease worldwide. The pattern

of dental caries has been found to be similar in family members and hence, inheritance of this

disease is suspected. Genetic variations in the host factors may contribute to increased risks

for dental caries. HLA-DR3 was associated with increased enamel defects thereby making

them prone to be affected by carious process. HLA- DR 5,7 was associated with a reduced

frequency of enamel defects. Current evidence also supports the linkage of altered dental

enamel development with increased susceptibility to dental caries. Increased enamel porosity,

decreased mineral content, and the presence of enamel crystal inhibitory proteins all are

directly linked to dental caries risk15. The basis for considering all the patterns as a genetic

marker for dental caries is that the ectoderm of finger buds , lip, palate and tooth enamel all

develop at the same time around 6–7th week of gestation and is completed by the 20–24th

52
 DISCUSSION

week of gestation. So any genetic message contained in the genome-normal or abnormal is

deciphered during this period.17

Among all the participants the prevalence of dental caries was higher among first generation

females which was consistent with study by Ferraro M et al 35., and lucaks J et al36.,2006.

Higher caries prevalence among females is often explained by one of the three factors like

earlier eruption of teeth in girls, hence longer exposure of girls teeth to the cariogenic oral

environment, frequent snacking during food preparation, and pregnancy. Also studies by

Lucas J et al36., found that the biochemical composition of saliva and the salivary flow rate

are modified by fluctuationg hormonal levels. So increased estrogen levels leads to increased

dental caries. Several animal studies conducted in the 1950s has found a connection between

increased thyroid levels in the blood, and a decrease in caries rate. Early animal research also

revealed that fluctuations in the level of estrogens influenced thyroid activity, and led to a

reduction in the saliva flow rate, and an increase in caries rate.36

In our study, the first generation and the second generation people showed higher prevalence

of dental caries with plain whorl pattern whereas the third generation showed higher

prevalence of dental caries with radial loop pattern which was similar to the study by

Madhusudhanan K et al25(2015), Cheeli S et al14.,(2017) and Shetty SS et al37.,(2018) but

contrast to the study by Abhilash PR et al 38.,(2012) , Anitha et al 39.,(2014) and Singh et al40.,

(2016) with prevalence of dental caries higher in whorl pattern.

Among all lip print pattern, the first generation showed increased prevalence of dental caries

with intersected pattern. The second generation subjects had higher prevalence of dental

caries with branched pattern and third generation with vertical pattern which was in contrast

to the study by Madhusudhanan et al25(2015) where prevalence of dental caries was higher

among the loop pattern.

53
 DISCUSSION

In correlating the shape of palatal rugae pattern, the straight pattern showed higher prevalence

of dental caries in first and third generation, whereas curved pattern in second generation

which was similar to the study by Cheeli S et al14(2017).

On correlating the dental caries with all the three parameters of repetitive patterns of finger,

lip and palatal rugae of three successive generations, was statistically insignificant.

54
 CONCLUSION

Despite the numerous studies stating that patterns of finger print, lip print and palatal rugae

are unique to an individual and holds the potential for identification, these patterns showed

repetition among three alternative and consecutive generations of families with statistically

significant results in the present study. Among these three parameters in this study, finger

prints and lip prints were more unique when compared to palatal rugae pattern. This brings

us to a conclusion, that finger prints and lip prints play a predominant role in personal

identification. .

Further these patterns which may be utilized effectively as a biomarker in the methods for

screening of dental caries are simple, inexpensive and non-invasive The results from our

study have revealed that the subjects with ulnar and radial loop finger print pattern showed

higher prevalence of dental caries. Among the lip print patterns, partial vertical and

intersected patterns showed higher prevalance of dental caries. Further Palatal

rugae(converging) with straight and curved patterns showed a fair increase in the prevalance

of dental caries.. As far as gender Predilection is concerned, the females of the first

generation had the higher prevalence of dental caries.

On correlating with the repetition patterns of Finger prints,Lip prints and palatal rugae with

prevelance of Dental caries, statistically insignificant results were obtained. In order to

further validate the significance of the present study, a larger sample size has to be studied

extensively.

The enamel, epithelium of the finger bud, lip and primary palate are derived from the

ectoderm during the same period of intrauterine life hence further genetic studies are

required, which may help to predict the risk assessment of dental caries using finger print, lip

print and palatal rugae patterns.

There are various advanced techniques like finger vein pattern recognition and palm vein

pattern recognition which are unique and used currently for individual identification. The

55
 CONCLUSION

same technique may be used in lip vein and palatal vein pattern recognition of an individual

and also further studies may be done to analyse its repetition pattern among three successive

generations of a family.

56
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Divakar KP et al.,Forensic odontology: The new dimension in dental analysis. Int J

Biomed Sci 2017; 13 (1): 1-5.

2. Kapoor N, Badiye A. A study of distribution, sex differences and stability of lip print

patterns in an Indian population. Saudi J Biol Sci 2017;24(6):1149-54.

3. Mala S, Rathod V, Pundir S, et al. Pattern self-repetition of fingerprints, lip prints, and

palatal rugae among three generations of family: A forensic approach to identify

family hierarchy. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2017; 9:15-9.

4. Jain G. "Dermatoglyphics"-The Science of Lines and Patterns and Its Implications in

Dentistry. J Int Med Res 2016;3(10):2973-7.

5. Mulvihill JJ, Smith DW. The genesis of dermatoglyphics. J. Pediatr. 1969;75(4):579-

89.

6. Blanka Schaumann, Milton, Alter. Dermatolglyphics in medical disorders. New York,

Heidel berg, Berlin: Springer- Verlage; 1976.

7. Kaushal N, Kaushal P. Human Identification and Fingerprints: A Review. J Biomet

Biostat.2011; 2:123-7.

8. Bixler D. Genetic aspects of dental anomalies. Chapt. 6. In: Mc Donald RE, Avery

DR, editors. Dentistry for the child and adolescent. St Louis: CV Mosby Co; 1988. p.

105-6.

9. Dineshshankar J, Ganapathi N, Yoithapprabhunath TR, et al. Lip prints: Role in

forensic odontology. J Pharm Bioall Sci.2013;5:95-7.

10. Kapali S, Townsend G, Richards L, Parish T. Palatal rugae patterns in Australian

Aborigines and Caucasians. Aust Dent J 1997;4:129-33.

11. Sulem P, Gudbjartsson DF, Stacey SN, et al. Genetic determinants of hair, eye and

skin pigmentation in Europeans. Nat. Genet. 2007;39(12):1443-52.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

12. Chinmaya Br , Smitha BV, Dermatoglyhics : An indicator of dental caries in humans

J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent 2016; 14: 272-5

13. Patel R, Patel R, Gadhavi N. Relationship between dermatoglyphics, cheiloscopy and

dental caries among dental students of visnagar town, gujarat. International Journal.

2015;3(7):952-9.

14. Cheeli S, Kumar KS, Dangeti D, Pavanireddy S. Comparative Reliability of

Rugoscopy and Dactyloscopy for the Predilection of Malocclusion and Dental Caries

in Children: A Cohort Study. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr.

2017;17(1):3796.

15. Mariani P, Mazzilli MC, Margutti G, Lionetti P, Triglione P, Petronzelli F, Ferrante

E, Bonamico M. Coeliac disease, enamel defects and HLA typing. Acta Paediatr.

1994;83(12):1272-5.

16. Devi A, Astekar M, Kumar V, Kaur P, Singh N, Sidhu GK. The study of inheritance

analysis and evaluation of lip prints in individualsJ Forensic Dent Sci. 2015;7(1):49.

17. Sharma A, Kapoor D. Dermatoglyphics, dentistry and diagnosis-A review. Baba Farid

Univ Dent J 2010;1:45-8.

18. Vats Y, Dhall JK, Kapoor AK. Heritability of Lip Print Patterns among North

Indian Populations. J Forensic Res 2011; 2:13-20.

19. Madan N, Rathnam A, Bajaj N. Palmistry: A tool for dental caries prediction!. Indian

J Dent Res 2011;22:213-8.

20. Ghalaut P, Bhagwath S, Saxena S. An Assessment Of Inheritance Pattern Of Lip

Prints In North Indian Population. Indian J Dent Res. 2013;5(1):37-9.

21. Bhat P, Badiyani B, Aruna CN, Chengappa S, Bhaskar N. Dermatoglyphics-A new

diagnostic tool in detection of dental caries among deaf and mute children. Int J Clin

Dent Sci 2012;2:80-4.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

22. Sengupta AB, Bazmi BA, Sarkar S, Kar S, Ghosh C, Mubtasum H. A cross sectional

study of dermatoglyphics and dental caries in Bengalee children. J Indian Soc Pedod

Prev Dent 2013;31:245-8.

23. Agravat D, Agarwal N, Patel P. Dermatoglyphics: A tool for dental caries prediction.

J Adv Med Dent Sci Res. 2014;2:66-9.

24. Vijender V, Tarannum T, Pathak A. Dermatoglyphics Interpretation of Dental Caries:

An In Vivo Study. Int J Dent Med Res 2015;1(6):54-56.

25. Madhusudan K, Patel HP, Umesh K, Chavan S, Patel R, Gadhavi N. Relationship

between dermatoglyphics, cheiloscopy and dental caries among dental students of

Visnagar town, Gujrat. Int J Adv Res 2015;3:952-9.

26. Patel RN, Umesh K, Sangeeta PR, Patel H, Patel N, Patel CK, Sabhaya N, Bhanushali

A. Assessing the inheritance of palatal rugae patterns. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2015;3(6):297-

301.

27. Chinmaya BR, Smitha BV, Tandon S, Khurana C. Dermatoglyphics: An indicator of

dental caries in humans. J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent 2016;14:272-5.

28. George R, Afandi NS, Abidin SN, Ishak NI, Soe HH, Ismail AR. Inheritance pattern

of lip prints among Malay population: a pilot study. J Forensic Leg Med 2016;39:156-

60.

29. Nikmah I, Fatchiyah F. Identification of Fingerprints Pattern in Mixed Family of

Chinese-Javanese Ethnic. J. Trop. Life Sci. 2017;7(3):263-7.

30. Kasuma N, Fitriana A, Fajrin FN. Palatal Rugae Pattern Identification to Determine

Family Lineage in Minangkabau, West Sumatera, Indonesia. Indian

J Med Forensic Med Toxicol 2018;12(2):222-5.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

31. Reddy KV, Kumar KN, Subramaniyan V, Togaru H, Kannaiah S, Reddy R.

Dermatoglyphics: A new diagnostic tool in detection of dental caries in children with

special health-care needs. Int J Ped Rehab. 2018;3(1):18.

32. Gaye S. Heredity in fingerprints. Identification News. 1970;20:10-4.

33. Shankar JD, Ganapathi N, Prabhunath TRY, et al. Lip prints: Role in forensic

odontology. J Pharm Bioall Sci.2013;5:95-7.

34. Hauser G, Daponte A, Roberts MJ. Palatal rugae. J Anat 1989;165:237-42.

35. Ferraro M, Vieira AR. Explaining gender differences in caries: a multifactorial

approach to a multifactorial disease. Int J Dent. 2010;3(1):25-9.

36. Lukacs JR, Largaespada LL et al. “Explaining sex differences in dental caries

prevalence: saliva, hormones, and “life history” etiologies,” American J Hum Bio

2006; 8(4):540–55.

37. Shetty SS, Saran R, Swapna BV, Shetty S. Association of dermatoglyphics with

dental caries and oral hygiene status. SRM J Res Dent Sci.2018;9(1):29-32.

38. Abhilash PR, Divyashree R, Patil SG, Gupta M, Chandrasekar T, Karthikeyan R.

Dermatoglyphics in patients with dental caries: A study on 1250 individuals. J

Contemp Dent Pract 2012; 13(3):266-74.

39. Anitha C, Konde S, Raj NS, Kumar NC, Peethamber P. Dermatoglyphics: A genetic

marker of early childhood caries. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014; 32(3):220-4.

40. Singh E, Saha S, Jagannath GV, Singh S, Saha S, Garg N, et al. Association of

dermatoglyphic peculiarities with dental caries in preschool children of Lucknow,

India. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9:39-44.

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL RUGAE DENTAL

CARIES
1A 70/F Ulnar loop Reticular-IV curved, Diverging 4

B 48/F Double loop Reticular-IV curved, Diverging 7

C 26/F double loop Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 1

2A 77/M Double loop Vertical-I' Wavy, diverging 9

B 52/F Ulnar loop Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 1

C 25/M Ulnar loop Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 0

3A 58/F Central loop Vertical curved, Diverging 2

B 40/f Central loop Branched-II curved, Diverging 0

C 11/f Central loop Branched-II curved, Diverging 0

4A 69/F Double loop Reticular-IV Curved, Diverging 2

whorl

B 42/F Double loop Reticular-IV Straight, converging 3

whorl

C 29/F Central loop Branched-II Straight, converging 1

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL RUGAE DENTAL

CARIES

5A 58/F Plain whorl Reticular-IV Curved, converging 11

B 37/F Plain whorl Intersected-III Curved, converging 12

C 9/F Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, diverging 6

6A 60/F Ulnar loop Reticular-IV Curved, Diverging 0

B 37/F Ulnar loop Reticular-IV Curved, diverging 0

C 21/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I’ Wavy, diverging 0

7A 65/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I’ Curved, diverging 1

B 38/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I’ Curved, diverging 0

C 21/F Ulnar loop Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 0

8A 76/M Plain whorl Reticular Curved, diverging 4

B 51/M Plain whorl Vertical-I’ Curved, diverging 2

C 27/M Plain whorl Vertical-I’ Curved, diverging 1

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL DENTAL

RUGAE CARIES

9A 68/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I’ Straight, diverging 3

B 38/F radial loop Vertical-I’ Straight,diverging 2

C 15/F radial loop Vertical-I’ Wavy, diverging 3

10A 72/M Radial loop Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 2

B 45/M Plain whorl Vertical-I’ Straight, diverging 0

C 18/M Radial loop Vertical-I’ Wavy, diverging 2

11A 78/F Radial loop Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 4

B 45/F Radial loop Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 3

C 16/F Double loop whorl Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 2

12A 70/F Double loop whorl Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 5

B 40/F ulnar loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 5

C 14/F Double loop whorl Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 3

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER LIP PRINT PALATAL DENTAL

PRINT RUGAE CARIES

13A 75/M Accidental loop Vertical-I Straight, 3

converging

B 67/M Plain whorl Vertical-I’ 2

Wavy, diverging

C 19/M Plain whorl Vertical-I’ 4

Wavy, diverging

14A 71/M Plain whorl Intersected-III Straight, 5

converging

B 47/M Plain whorl Intersected-III 3

Straight,
Converging

C 17/M Plain whorl Reticular-IV 0

Straight,
converging

15A 70/M Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, diverging 4

B 43/M Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, 0

Diverging

C 13/M Ulnar loop Intersected-III 0

Curved,
Diverging

16A 72/F Plain whorl Vertical-I Curved, 2

Diverging

B 39/F Double loop Vertical-I 2

whorl Wavy, Diverging

C 5/F Vertical-I 0
Plain whorl Wavy, diverging
 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL Dental

RUGAE caries

17A 60/F Double loop Vertical-I Curved, diverging 10

whorl

B 44/F Reticular-IV Curved, Diverging 2

Plain whorl

C 21/F Intersected-III Curved, diverging 0

Plain whorl

18A 70/F Double loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 1

whorl

B 41/F Reticular-IV Curved, Diverging 1

Ulnar loop

C 41/F Intersected-III Wavy, Diverging 0

Ulnar loop

19A 70/M Plain whorl Intersected-III Wavy, diverging 13

B 38/F Plain whorl Intersected-II Wavy, diverging 0

C 6/M Plain whorl Branched-II Curved, Diverging 0

20A 68/M Plain whorl Reticular-IV Curved, Diverging 3

B 35/M Plain whorl Vertical-I Straight, converging 0

C 8/M Double loop whorl Vertical-I Straight, converging 6

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL RUGAE DENTAL

CARIES

21A 49/F Double loop whorl Branched-II Wavy, 10

diverging

B 27/F Double loop whorl Reticular-IV 0

Wavy,
diverging

C 9/F Double loop whorl Reticular-IV 0

Wavy,
diverging
2
22A 62/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging

3
B 45/f Ulnar loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging

2
C 18/f Plain whorl Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging

23A 56/F Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, Diverging 5

B 36/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 5

C 16/F Plain whorl Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 0

24A 59/F Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, Diverging 6

B 39/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 1

C 12/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 5

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL RUGAE DENTAL

CARIES

25A 79/M Ulnar loop Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 4

B 49/M Plain whorl Reticular-IV Straight, diverging 6

C 14/M Ulnar loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 5

26A 75/F Plain arch Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 18

B 40/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 6

C 20/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 1

27A 70/F Double loop Intersected-III Wavy, diverging 5

B 50/F Ulnar loop Branched-II Curved, Diverging 7

c 28/f Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, Diverging 2

28A 65/F Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, Diverging 9

B 46/F Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, Diverging 3

c 24/F Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, Diverging 1

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL RUGAE DENTAL

CARIES

29A 67/M Plain whorl Branched-II Wavy, diverging 4

B 36/M Double loop Branched-II Wavy, diverging 1

C 10/M Double loop Branched-II Wavy, diverging 2

30A 56/F Double loop Branched-II Wavy, diverging 1

B 33/f Ulnar loop Branched-II Wavy, diverging 1

C 12/F Ulnar loop Branched-II Wavy, diverging 0

31A 57/F Plain whorl Reticular-IV Straight, converging 14

B 38/F Ulnar loop Branched-II Curved, Diverging 4

C 14/F Ulnar loop Branched-II Curved, Diverging 1

32A 68/M Ulnar loop Intersected-III Wavy, diverging 1

B 39/M Plain whorl Intersected-III Wavy, diverging 1

C 9/M Ulnar loop Intersected-III Wavy, diverging 2

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL RUGAE DENTAL

CARIES

33A 78/M Plain whorl Branched-II Curved, Diverging 1

B 54/M Plain whorl Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 5

C 24/M Double loop Intersected-III Wavy, diverging 0

34A 84/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Straight, diverging 9

B 68/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Straight, diverging 6

c 82/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Straight, diverging 9

35A 89/M Ulnar loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 4

B 64/M Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, Diverging 3

C 36/M Plain whorl Branched-II Curved, Diverging 5

36A 59/F Plain whorl Branched-II Wavy, diverging 7

B 35/F Ulnar loop Branched-II Wavy, diverging 6

C 11/F Ulnar loop Branched-II Wavy, diverging 4

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL RUGAE DENTAL

CARIES

37A 65/M Plain whorl Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 2

B 36/M Ulnar loop Branched-II Wavy, diverging 2

C 14/M Ulnar loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 0

38A 61/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Curved, Diverging 2

B 35/F Double loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 5

c 9/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 3

39A 67/M Plain whorl Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 5

B 42/M Ulnar loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 1

C 19/M Ulnar loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 0

40A 75/M Ulnar loop Reticular-IV Curved, Diverging 6

B 39/M Ulnar loop Branched-II Wavy, diverging 2

C 8/M Double loop Branched-II Wavy, diverging 1

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/ FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL RUGAE DENTAL

F CARIES

41A 55/F Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, Diverging 1

B 35/F Double loop Branched-II Curved, Diverging 4

C 12/F Double loop Reticular-IV Curved, Diverging 0

42A 72/M Double loop Intersected-III Curved, Diverging 2

B 47/M Ulnar loop Intersected-III Curved, Diverging 2

C 12/M Plain whorl Vertical-I Straight, diverging 0

43A 57/F Ulnar loop Branched-II Curved, Diverging 1

B 37/F Ulnar loop Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 3

C 11/F Ulnar loop Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 4

44A 60/f Ulnar loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 0

B 41/F Double loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 1

C 14/F Double loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 0

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/ FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL DENTAL

F RUGAE CARIES

45A 45/F Double loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 3

B 21/f Ulnar loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 3

C 7/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 0

46A 70/F Double loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 0

B 35/F Double loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 0

C 12/F Double loop Reticular-IV Curved, Diverging 0

47A 60/F Ulnar loop Intersected-III Straight, 7

converging

B 30/f Ulnar loop Vertical-I 2

Curved, Diverging

C 13/F Plain whorl Vertical-I 1

Wavy, diverging

48A 55/F Plain whorl Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 3

B 29/F Plain whorl Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 0

C 7/F Plain whorl Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 0

 ANNEXURE-II

FAMILY AGE/F FINGER PRINT LIP PRINT PALATAL RUGAE DENTAL

CARIES

49A 71/M Plain whorl Reticular-IV Wavy, diverging 1

B 41/M Plain whorl Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 3

C 15/M Plain whorl Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 1

50A 64/F Plain whorl Intersected-III Wavy, diverging 5

B 44/F Plain whorl Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 3

C 24/F Ulnar loop Vertical-I Wavy, diverging 0