Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 568    
     


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 439-445
Comparison of cheiloscopy and rugoscopy in Karnataka, Kerala, and Manipuri population


Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, MNR Dental College and Hospital, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Date of Submission19-Jun-2018
Date of Acceptance30-Jul-2018
Date of Web Publication8-Oct-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sangameshwar Manikya
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, MNR Dental College and Hospital, Sanga Reddy, Hyderabad, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_223_18

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 

Aims and Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare lip prints and palatal rugae pattern in Kerala, Karnataka, and Manipuri population.
Materials and Methods: The study involved 180 individuals (60 each from Karnataka, Kerala, and Manipuri population). Lipstick was used to record lip prints, which were visualized by magnifying lens. Palatal rugae were recorded on maxillary casts of all subjects and analyzed following Kapali S et al.' s classification. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20 for Windows software was used for analysis.
Results: Among the study population, most frequent lip print pattern was Type 3 and least was Type 1'. When patterns were compared between groups, Type 3 was the most common in Manipuri and Kerala and Type 3 in Karnataka groups. In the entire population, males showed Type 3 and females showed Type 1. On analysis of overall rugae wavy, forward and divergence patterns were predominant. On comparison of gender, males demonstrated greater number of wavy and perpendicular rugae, and females had curved, straight, forward, and backward.
Conclusion: Both cheiloscopy and rugoscopy have the prospective to recognize an individual. Cheiloscopy is more reliable than rugoscopy in making out the group and gender of an individual.


Keywords: Cheiloscopy, forensic identification, Karnataka, Kerala, rugoscopy


How to cite this article:
Manikya S, Sureka V, Prasanna M D, Ealla K, Reddy S, Bindu PS. Comparison of cheiloscopy and rugoscopy in Karnataka, Kerala, and Manipuri population. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2018;8:439-45

How to cite this URL:
Manikya S, Sureka V, Prasanna M D, Ealla K, Reddy S, Bindu PS. Comparison of cheiloscopy and rugoscopy in Karnataka, Kerala, and Manipuri population. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2018 [cited 2019 Dec 11];8:439-45. Available from: http://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2018/8/5/439/242867



   Introduction Top


Human identification has become fundamental in every facet of human relationships, at both social and legal levels.[1],[2] Dental identification, fingerprints, and DNA evaluation are possibly the most frequent methods used for identification process. However, these cannot be useful in all circumstances. Therefore, it is essential to apply other and less known methods such as cheiloscopy and rugoscopy for identification.[3],[4],[5],[6]

“Cheiloscopy” is the assessment of lip print pattern (LPP). Uniqueness is the feature of LPP, which substantiates its usefulness in various situations. Cheiloscopy may be used as a valuable tool in individual identification.[7],[8] Palatoscopy or palatal rugoscopy is the study of palatal rugae pattern (PRP) so as to ascertain a person's identity.[8],[9],[10]

Sivapathasundharam et al. found Type 3 LPP as a predominant pattern in their study.[7] Nayak et al. observed the most common rugae shape as wavy among the males whereas curved and straight shapes in the females.[8] We carried this study to assess and compare the LPP and PRP in Karnataka, Kerala, and Manipuri populations, as these patterns are unique to individuals, thereby helpful in forensic odontology.


   Materials and Methods Top


We included sixty each of Karnataka, Kerala, and Manipuri students in the age group of 18–23 years of Navodaya Educational Institutions, Raichur, Karnataka (Ethical committee clearance; reg. No. ECR/269/Indt/TG/2016). Sample size was calculated using Institute for Experimental Psychology in Dusseldorf, Germany. Total sample size obtained was 178 which was rounded to 180 which was divided into three groups sixty each. Sixty in each group is equally divided into thirty each as males and females.

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria were lips and rugae without any inflammatory disease, trauma, malformation, deformity, and scars.

Procedure

For recording lip prints, individuals were asked to open their mouth widely and applying Vaseline around lips, later in a single motion, lipstick was applied evenly. They were instructed to lightly rub both their lips gently so that lipstick spreads evenly. A 10-cm strip of cellophane tap was cut with scissors. Lip impressions were recorded in the rest position by applying a strip of glued portion of cellophane tape, initially in the center after which uniform pressure was applied toward the corner of the lips. Then, the tape was cautiously removed beginning at one end to the other, evading any smudging of the print and fixed on to a white chart paper. Each individual was given a serial number, which was written on the back to serve as a permanent record. The impression was then observed with a magnifying lens for features such as a number of lines, furrows branching, and combinations [Figure 1]. Tsuchihashi (1970) et al.[9] classification was used for LPP and Vahanwala SP, Parekh BK (2000) et al.[10] classification was used for determining the gender of participants [Table 1].[7]
Figure 1: Lip print patterns among three groups

Click here to view
Table 1: Vahanwala (2000) et al's. classification for gender determination

Click here to view


Interpretation of lip prints

Each individual's lips were divided into six compartments (1 – upper right, 2 – lower right, 3 – lower middle, 4 – lower left, 5 – upper left, and 6 – upper middle).

Palatal rugae recording procedure

Maxillary arch impressions were made with alginate. Casts were poured and stored for analysis [Figure 2]. The rugae outlines were traced on the casts with a graphite pencil and patterns were evaluated based on Kapali S et al. ( 1983) classification, which includes length, number, shape, and unification of rugae.[7]
Figure 2: Maxillary arch casts for analysis of palatal rugae

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

Results obtained from this study were expressed in proportion. Comparison between groups was done by Z-test and Chi-square test. A two-tailed P < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. Data were analyzed by software SPSS Version 20 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY: USA).


   Results and Observations Top


All the lip prints were cautiously observed and patterns were verified. They were found to be unique for every individual and more than one LPP was observed in many individuals. The most frequent LPP was Type 3 (41%) followed by Type 2 (27%) and least common was Type 1' (0.05%) [Table 2]. Comparing LPP in all three population showed that the most frequent one in Karnataka was Type 2 (45%), whereas in Kerala and Manipuri, it was Type 3 (45% and 38%), but the least widespread LPP in Karnataka was Type 4, and in Kerala and Manipuri participants, it was Type 1' [Table 3] and [Graph 1]. Statistically significant variation in Type 1 (P = 0.024), Type 2 (P = 0.0001), and Type 4 (P = 0.006) was noted on comparison between all the three groups of population.
Table 2: Distribution of lip print patterns in total study population (n=180)

Click here to view
Table 3: Comparison of lip print patterns between Karnataka, Kerala, and Manipuri population (n=180)

Click here to view



Gender-wise comparison of the study population revealed most frequent LPP in males to be Type 3 (54.4%) and in females Type 1 (30%) [Graph 2]. A statistically significant difference in Type 1 (P = 0.003) and Type 3 (P = 0.0003) was found.



On comparison, predominant LPP in males was Type 3, followed by Type 2, with a significant difference (P = 0.008). However Type 1 pattern was predominantly seen in Manipuri and Kerala population and Type 2 in Karnataka population, the difference being statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Among Karnataka population, the most frequent LPP in males was Type 3 (53.3%) and in females Type 2 (50%). A statistically significant difference in Type 3 (P = 0.03) was noted, whereas in Kerala population, the most frequent LPP in males was Type 3 (63%) and in females Type 1 (33%), and there was a significant difference in Type 3 (P = 0.004). In Manipuri population, the most frequent LPP in males was Type 3 (47%) and in females Type 1 (43%). There was a significant difference in Type 1 (P = 0.02).

Based on Vahanwala SP, Parekh BK (2000)[10] classification, 55 (61%) males and 53 (59%) females were correctly identified. Twelve individuals showed similar LPP in all compartments, whereas nine individuals showed varied LPP in all compartments [Table 4].
Table 4: Accuracy of cheiloscopy in gender identification* (n=180)

Click here to view


Compartment-wise examination of the LPPs of total study population showed Type 3 predominantly in compartment 1, 3, 4, and 6; Type 4 in compartment 2; and Type 1 in compartment 5.

Palatal rugae were compared between gender and population by analyzing the palate for a total number of rugae, predominant shape, predominant direction, and unification of rugae. When the number of rugae was compared between the three populations, a total number of rugae were more in Karnataka (426), followed by Kerala (420) and Manipuri (412) population, and there was no significant difference [Table 5] and [Graph 3].
Table 5: Distribution of total number of rugae in Karnataka, Kerala, and Manipuri population (n=180)

Click here to view



In overall population, the principal shape of rugae was wavy, followed by curved and straight. Most frequent direction was forward, followed by backward and perpendicular. Most common unification was divergence followed by convergence [Table 6] and [Graph 4].
Table 6: Comparison of palatal rugae patterns in overall, Karnataka, Kerala, and Manipuri population (n=180)

Click here to view



On comparison of rugae patterns among three groups, main shape in all groups was wavy, followed by curved and straight; predominant direction in Karnataka and Kerala was forward, followed by backward and perpendicular directions, whereas Manipuri group revealed forward, followed by perpendicular and backward direction [Graph 5]. The predominant unification was divergence followed by convergence in three groups [Graph 6]. Significant difference was observed in backward (P = 0.003) and perpendicular direction (P = 0.05).



Gender wise comparison showed that males had mostly wavy pattern and females had curved and straight patterns. Females revealed more number of forward and backward rugae, whereas males had more number of perpendicular rugae. Males showed more number of divergent rugae and females convergent rugae. On comparison of rugae patterns in males between three groups, backwardly directed rugae showed a significant difference. Females showed backwardly directed rugae and was statistically significant.

On comparison of rugae patterns on both sides of the entire study population, wavy pattern was more in number on the left side and curved and straight rugae on the right side. A significant difference in straight rugae (P = 0.02) was observed. Forward rugae were more in number on left side and backward and perpendicular type on the right side. Statistically significant difference was seen in forward and backward rugae (P = 0.0001). Convergent rugae were more on the left in comparison to right side and divergent rugae was in the same number.


   Discussion Top


Conventional methods for personal identification comprise anthropometry, fingerprints, age, sex determination, and blood groups. These methods have proven successful in many cases. LPP and PRR are one among the other methods, which may help in personal identification because of their uniqueness.[8],[9],[10],[11],[12]

We carried this study to analyze and compare LPP and PRP in three groups (Karnataka, Kerala, and Manipuri) to determine their uniqueness in individuals. Over all, Type 3 pattern was the most common pattern in the entire population. It is similar to studies of Sivapathasundharam et al., Prasad and Vanishree, who showed Type 3 as a predominant pattern.[11]

In Karnataka population, the most common LPP was Type 2 (45%) followed by Type 3. Rastogi and Parida[13] revealed the most common pattern to be Type 2. Contrast to this, Verghese et al.(2011)[14] conducted a study on Karnataka population and concluded that the most common pattern was Type 4. In Karnataka group, most common LPP was branched pattern (Type 2) and the least common pattern was reticular pattern (Type 4). Most common LPP in Kerala was Type 3 (45%) followed by Type 1 (24%). Mathew et al. found that the most frequent LPP was Type 1.[12] In Kerala population, most frequent LPP was intersecting pattern (Type 3) and the least frequent was partial length vertical grooves (Type 1').

Most common LPP in Manipuri was Type 3 (38%) followed by Type 1 (30%). Prasad et al (2011)[11] found that the most frequent LPP in Manipuri was Type 3 and Koneru et al. (2013)[15] in their study found Type 1. In Manipuri population, most frequent LPP was intersecting pattern (Type 3) and the least was partial length vertical grooves (Type 1').

There was a significant difference in Type 2 LPP among groups, suggesting that it may be one of the factors which help to differentiate Karnataka population from Kerala and Manipuri. Statistically significant difference was observed seen in Type 1 and Type 4, indicating that these types help to establish the population.

In the entire study population, most common LPP in males was intersecting pattern (Type 3) and in females was vertical grooves (Type 1). The difference may be helpful in determination of sex of the individual. Intragroup comparison among both the genders revealed that males can be differentiated from females in all the groups based on predominant patterns considerably.

Some of our results were diverse to other similar studies, which might be due to lower sample size and considering the area of interest. Most of the studies considered a lower-middle portion of the lip and others divided four quadrants and studied the lip patterns.

Based on Vahanwala SP, Parekh BK (2000)[10] classification, 55 (61%) males and 53 (59%) females were correctly identified.[14] Individuals who had similar patterns in all compartments were considered as females, whereas nine individuals showed varied patterns and were considered as males. Kumar et al.[16] carried a study on cheiloscopy for gender determination, and 95.55% and 97.77% were rightly recognized as males and females, respectively. Hence, reliability of LPP in determining the gender was considerable.

Portion-wise study of LPP among the groups revealed that Karnataka population was different from other two populations considering the compartments 1, 3, 4, and 6. This shows that not only the middle portion but also the other portions to be considered. Comparison between both sexes within the groups demonstrated no variation on compartment-wise analysis.

Analysis of LPP showed that, in the entire population, males and females can be differentiated on the basis of LPP. It is as well probable to differentiate between groups based on the predominant lip pattern and compartment-wise analysis to a considerable extent.

Palatal rugae study revealed that the total number of rugae was greater in Karnataka, followed by Kerala and Manipuri population. Nevertheless, no statistically significant difference was observed in the total number of rugae. Paliwal et al.[17] observed that the difference in a total number of rugae among the two groups showed no statistical difference.

In the entire study population, predominant shape of rugae was wavy, followed by curved and straight. Paliwal et al.[17] in their study found that wavy pattern was predominant, followed by curved and then straight.

In the entire study population, most frequent rugae direction was forward, followed by backward and perpendicular. Paliwal et al.[17] in their study observed forward, followed by backward and perpendicular direction.

In the whole population, most common unification was divergence followed by convergence. Paliwal et al.[17] found that the most common unification is divergence followed by convergence.

On comparison of PRP between the three populations, main shape in all groups was wavy, followed by curved and straight. Predominant direction was forward, followed by backward and perpendicular in Karnataka and Kerala, whereas Manipuri group showed forward followed by perpendicular and backward directions. The predominant unification was divergence followed by convergence in all the three groups. Statistically significant difference was observed in backward and perpendicular direction. Analysis of PRP revealed no much variation between the groups except for the significant backward and perpendicular rugae patterns.

Males showed more number of wavy patterns, whereas females showed more number of curved and straight patterns. Our study results were similar to Nayak et al.[8] They observed the most common rugae shape as wavy among the males, whereas curved and straight shapes in the females. This may aid to distinguish gender.

On comparison of gender within the groups, there was a significant difference only in backward PRP in Karnataka population. This suggests that PRP is not considerable for distinguishing gender within the groups.

When we compared right and left side of the entire population, a more number of wavy and forward rugae patterns were on the left side, whereas curved, straight, backward, and perpendicular patterns were on the right side. Left side had more convergent rugae, whereas divergent rugae were same on both sides. There was a significant difference in straight rugae and forward and backward rugae. Paliwal et al.[17] observed that right side had significantly more number of wavy rugae in males. This is explained by the phenomenon of regressive evaluation, dominating the right side of the palate.

Analysis of PRP showed no much variation between the populations except for the significant backward rugae pattern. Males and females also showed no significant difference except for backward rugae. The right side of the palate had more number of rugae than the left side with significant difference in straight, forward, and backward rugae. This indicates that although it is unique, it is hard to distinguish between population and gender considering the rugae patterns.

The present study revealed that both cheiloscopy and rugoscopy can be used to identify an individual; LPP is more consistent in the identification of the sex of an individual as compared to PRPs. LPP and PRP in combination give better results compared to lip prints or palatal rugae alone.

Key findings

This study clearly demonstrates that LPP and PRP are unique to each individual and have potential as a supplementary tool, along with the dentition, to establish the identity of an individual. Cheiloscopy and rugoscopy stand as potential techniques in identifying an individual compared to DNA fingerprinting which is cumbersome. In future, further larger sample (as this is the main limitation of our study) between different populations should be studied in combination with other methods such as fingerprints, DNA comparison, and dental characteristics to narrow the field for identification and give better results.


   Conclusion Top


LPP and PRP are genotypically determined and stay unaffected from birth to death. Hence, these methods can be extensively used in forensic odontology for accurate identification. Finally, this study concludes that the LPP and PRP may be used precisely as an additional method of differentiating populations.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Kapali S, Townsend G, Richards L, Parish T. Palatal rugae patterns in Australian aborigines and Caucasians. Aust Dent J 1997;42:129-33.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Fernandes LC, Oliveira JA, Santiago BM, Rabello PM, Carvalho MV, Campello RI, et al. Cheiloscopic study among monozygotic twins, non-twin brothers and non-relative individuals. Braz Dent J 2017;28:517-22.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Debnath N, Gupta R, Nongthombam RS, Chandran P. Forensic odontology. J Med Soc 2016;30:20-3.  Back to cited text no. 3
  [Full text]  
4.
Sharma BS, Gupta V, Vij H, Sharma E, Tyagi N, Singh S. Cheiloscopy: A tool for antemortem identification. Indian J Dent Sci 2017;9:176-80.  Back to cited text no. 4
  [Full text]  
5.
Chatra L, Peter T, Ahsan A. Cheiloscopy. Int J Forensic Odontol 2016;1:48-52.  Back to cited text no. 5
  [Full text]  
6.
Dwivedi N, Nagarajappa AK. Morphological analysis of palatal rugae pattern in central Indian population. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2016;6:417-22.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Sivapathasundharam B, Prakash PA, Sivakumar G. Lip prints (cheiloscopy). Indian J Dent Res 2001;12:234-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Nayak P, Acharya AB, Padmini AT, Kaveri H. Differences in the palatal rugae shape in two populations of India. Arch Oral Biol 2007;52:977-82.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Tsuchihashi Y. Studies on personal identification by means of lip prints. Forensic sci. 1974;3:233-48.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Vahanwala SP, Parekh BK. Study of lip prints as an aid to forensic methodology. J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2000;17:12-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Prasad P, Vanishree. A comparison of lip prints between Aryans-Dravidians and Mongols. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22:664-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
12.
Mathew SA, Kasim K, Mrudula K, Jayashekeran. Establishing identity using cheiloscopy and palatoscopy. Sch J Dent Sci 2016;3:74-80.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Rastogi P, Parida A. Lip prints – An aid in identifi cation. Aust J Forensic Sci 2011;1:1-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Verghese AJ, Mestri CS. A study of efficacy of lip prints as an identification tool among the people of Karnataka in India. J Indian Acad Forensic Med 2011;33:200-2.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Koneru A, Surekha R, Nellithady GS, Vanishree M, Ramesh D, Patil RS, et al. Comparison of lip prints in two different populations of India: Reflections based on a preliminary examination. J Forensic Dent Sci 2013;5:11-5.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
16.
Kumar A, Prasad SN, Kamal V, Priya S, Kumar M, Kumar A. Importance of cheiloscopy. Int J Oral Care Res 2016;4:48-52.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Paliwal A, Wanjari S, Parwani R. Palatal rugoscopy: Establishing identity. J Forensic Dent Sci 2010;2:27-31.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (1,467 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
    Results and Obse...
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed984    
    Printed13    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded70    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal