Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Search Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 967
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 9-16

Reliability of digitized cheiloscopy, dactyloscopy and combination approach for gender identification – A comparative study


1 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Swami Devi Dyal Hospital and Dental College, Barwala, Haryana, India
2 Private Practice, Chandigarh, India
3 Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, K M Shah Institute of Dental Sciences, Vadodara, Gujarat, India

Date of Submission12-Mar-2020
Date of Decision14-Mar-2020
Date of Acceptance15-Mar-2020
Date of Web Publication17-Apr-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Aravinda Konidena
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Swami Devi Dyal Hospital and Dental College, Haryana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jiaomr.jiaomr_41_20

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background and Aims: The oral cavity allows for a numerous prospects for personal identification of subjects. Dental profiling, palatoscopy, cheiloscopy had enabled in nailing the suspects in addition to traditional methods like anthropometry, finger prints, blood groups, DNA analysis. The aim of this study is to assess the reliability of digitized lip prints, finger prints and combination approach in gender determination in Panchkula population. Method: A total of 500 healthy subjects, (250 females and 250 males) aged 20 to 30 years of both genders were recruited and evaluated. Lip prints were obtained by painting lip stick and using cellotape to take the impression, while finger prints were obtained by fingerprint rolling technique. Scanned images of the obtained lip and finger prints were analyzed according to Suzuki K and Tsuchihashi Y and classification by Cummins and Midlo, respectively, using applications of 'Adobe Photoshop 7' software. Results: Finger print analysis correctly classified gender in 52.6%, but was not statistically significant (Canonical correlation = 0.117, P = 0.230) Lip print analysis correctly identified gender in 64.8% and was statistically significant (Canonical correlation = 0.350,P < 0.001). When a combination approach was used, the gender was correctly identified in 65.8% and was statistically significant (Canonical correlation = 0.369,P < 0.001). Conclusion: Although not a 100% accurate method, the combination method was found to be more accurate and thus can be used as a supplementary tool in sex determination.

Keywords: Cheiloscopy, dactyloscopy, gender identification, reliability


How to cite this article:
Singh Kataria AP, Konidena A, Puri G, Patil DJ, Gupta R. Reliability of digitized cheiloscopy, dactyloscopy and combination approach for gender identification – A comparative study. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2020;32:9-16

How to cite this URL:
Singh Kataria AP, Konidena A, Puri G, Patil DJ, Gupta R. Reliability of digitized cheiloscopy, dactyloscopy and combination approach for gender identification – A comparative study. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 May 30];32:9-16. Available from: http://www.jiaomr.in/text.asp?2020/32/1/9/282620




   Introduction Top


Identification of criminals is pertinent to bring justice to the deprived. In this era, criminals have started making use of sophisticated technical measures while committing their crimes, thus intensifying the need for better investigation systems.[1] At the scene of crime, biological evidence when examined and analysed by forensic specialists, can derive information about the suspected criminal, probable period of occurrence of crime and the nature of crime conduction. One such speciality, forensic odontology was described by Keiser-Nielson as “the proper handling and examination of dental evidence in the interest of justice, so that the dental findings may be properly presented and evaluated.”[2]

Identification of unknown remains is one of the most challenging tasks faced by forensic specialists. Identity is a set of physical characteristics, functional or psychic, normal or pathological, that defines an individual.[3] Human identification is based on scientific principles, so as to identify and register individuals for both civil and criminal purposes.[4] Personal identification of unknown deceased persons in homicides, suicides, murders, accidents, mass disasters, etc., and in cases of missing individuals or culprits, masking their true identity is very vital.[5]

Traditional methods for personal identification include anthropometry, finger prints, gender determination, age estimation, blood groups, DNA and dental traits.[6] Otoscopy, Dactyloscopy, Cheiloscopy, Poroscopy, Rugoscopy and examination of iris had also been used of late in the biometrics/identification of subjects.[7] Locard's exchange principle states that when two objects come into contact, there is always a transfer of material from each other.[1] According to this principle, there are high possibilities that traces of a person may be left at the scene or traces from the scene may be carried away on the person.[5] Evidence in the form of lip prints and finger prints may therefore be available at the scene of crime.

The elevations and depressions forming a characteristic pattern on the external surface of lips are called lip prints.[8] Using this feature for forensic investigations is justified as the pattern never undergoes changes from birth until the body undergoes decomposition according to previous literature.[9] Lip prints are usually left at crime scenes and can provide a direct link to the suspect. The use of lipsticks is not mandatory for leaving lip prints as the lips have sebaceous and sweat glands, leading to secretions of oil and moisture. The oil and moisture enable development of latent lip prints, analogous to latent finger prints.[10] Moreover it further deciphers the type of the event, number of people involved, gender cosmetics used, any habits and pathological states associated with lip prints.[9]

Fingerprint recognition is among the most widely used biometric systems and the study of finger prints is known as dactyloscopy.[11] Finger prints as a form of identification have been used since 7000 to 6000 BC by the ancient Assyrians and Chinese.[12] It had been established that no two finger prints have the same ridge pattern and they remain unchanged throughout life.

To identify an individual correctly, especially in the absence of visual identification, it may be necessary to match as many physical sources of evidence as available, except when there is no error possible as in the case of DNA matching. Thus the physical evidence available from different sources in a body may have to be correlated to reduce misconception of data that may result in delusion and evasion of truth. The attempt to correlate lip print and finger prints thus may be significant in its own way to formulate a forensic signature by using a combination approach for human identification. Literature search revealed paucity of studies exploring the accuracy of lip prints and finger prints or combination approach in gender identification, hence the present study was undertaken.


   Methods Top


Ethical clearance

Institutional ethical clearance for the study was obtained (SDD/13/Eth/010) and written informed consent was taken from the participants. The study procedures were carried out in accordance with Helsinki declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Study design and population

A cross-sectionalin vivo study was conducted in a dental college on 500 subjects (250 males and 250 females). Inclusion criteria were subjects in the age group of 20 and 30 years (inclusive of both years), belonging to Panchkula, willing to give written informed consent. Individuals with developmental or acquired anomalies of lips or fingers (leprosy, scars of fingertips, laceration etc.) were excluded from the study.


   Methodology Top


Cheiloscopy

After obtaining written informed consent, participants were asked to rinse their mouth with a prophylactic antiseptic mouth rinse, followed by cleansing of upper and lower lips with Povidone-Iodine cleansing solution. A dark-coloured lipstick was then applied with a single stroke with a paintbrush evenly on the lips. The subjects were asked to rub both the lips to spread the applied lipstick. After two minutes a lip impression was made on a 5 cm of cellophane tape on the glued portion, in the resting state of the lips, which was then stuck on a white bond paper. This served as a permanent record [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Acquisition and digitization of lip print

Click here to view


Dactyloscopy

The subjects were asked to wash their hands with soap and water and dry them with a hand towel to avoid dirt from interfering with the ink prints. Palmar aspects of finger tips of both hands were pressed upon the stamp pad one after the other.[4] The finger print were transferred to the duplicating paper by gently rolling the fingers from side to side (by fingerprint rolling technique) in order to obtain clear complete print [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Acquisition and digitization of finger print

Click here to view


Digitization of lip prints, finger prints and analysis

The lip print and finger print were scanned (256 gray shades at a resolution of 300 dpi) for the digital analysis. Using applications of 'Adobe Photoshop 7' software, the finger print patterns of all the ten digits (RD1 – RD5, LD1-LD5) were identified according to the classification by Cummins H and Midlo C,[13] while lip prints were classified according to Suzuki K and Tsuchihashi Y.[14] Lip prints were divided into four quadrants to facilitate analysis.

Statistical analysis

The data was subjected to statistical analysis, using SPSS 20.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago, USA). Discrete categorical data was represented in the form of number or percentage. Quadrant wise analysis of lip prints and the differences between genders was done by Pearson Chi – square. Gender differences between finger print pattern and lip print pattern were analyzed by ANOVA. Correlation between lip prints and finger prints was analyzed by Spearman's correlation. Reliability of finger print, lip print and combination method was analyzed by Discriminant analysis and regression formulae were derived for the study population.


   Results Top


Age and gender distribution of the study population

The age wise and gender wise distribution of 500 study population (250 males and 250 females) is shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Age and Gender distribution of the study population

Click here to view


Cheiloscopy

In 250 males, out of 1000 quadrant-wise patterns assessed, Type I, Type I', Type II, Type III, Type IV, Type V were seen in 150, 74, 336, 300, 58 and 82 patterns, respectively. In 250 females, out of 1000 quadrant-wise patterns assessed, Type I, Type I, Type II, Type III, Type IV, Type V were seen in 65,46,474,303,57 and 55 patterns, respectively [Table 2], [Figure 3].
Table 2: Total number and Type of lip prints in males and females

Click here to view
Figure 3: Graph showing gender differences in lip print patterns

Click here to view


Gender variation in cheiloscopy

When the overall lip print patterns on the upper lip was compared by independent proportions test, between males and females, Type II pattern was more common in females and the difference was highly significant (P < 0.0002), whereas Type I, IV and V were significantly (P = 0.025, 0.003, 0.0006 respectively) more common in males. In the lower lip, Type II was more common in females with a statistical significance (P = 0.0015) while Type I and I' were significantly more common in males which was statistically significant [P < 0.002, P = 0.0088, respectively [Table 3].
Table 3: Gender differences in the Type of lip prints on upper and lower lip

Click here to view


Dactyloscopy

The distribution of finger prints in males had whorls in 514 (20.56%), tented arches in 272 (10.88%), arches in 1145 (45.8%), radial loops in 49 (1.96%) and ulnar loops in 525 (21%). In females, 523 (20.92%) were whorls, 1161 (46.44%) were arches, 305 (12.2%) were tented arches, 36 (1.44%) were radial loops and 475 (19%) were ulnar loops [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Graph showing finger print pattern distribution of both hands in males and females

Click here to view


Gender variation in dactyloscopy

In the present study, when the patterns of individual fingers were analysed statistically for gender differences in the right hand, results showed highly significant differences for right thumb and significant differences for RD2 and RD4. A statistically significant difference between male and female fingerprint patterns were observed in LD1, LD4 and LD5 [Table 4].
Table 4: Gender differences between finger print patterns

Click here to view


Correlation between dactyloscopy and cheiloscopy

When correlation between lip prints and finger prints was analysed in the present study, in males a weak positive correlation was found between Whorl and Type II lip print pattern and U Loop showed a weak negative correlation with Types I and V lip prints, with significance. A weak negative correlation was observed between Arch and Type IV lip print pattern with statistical significance in females. [Table 5]a and [Table 5]b.
Table 5a: Correlation between finger prints and lip prints in males


Click here to view
Table 5b: Correlation between finger prints and lip prints in females


Click here to view


Discriminant analysis

When finger print data was used for gender determination by Discriminant analysis in the present study, 128 males were correctly identified as males, while 135 females were correctly identified as females. When lip print analysis was used for gender determination, 155 males were correctly identified as males, while 169 females were correctly identified as females. When gender was identified by combination approach, 159 males were correctly identified as males, while 170 females were correctly identified as females. In the present study, finger print analysis correctly classified gender in 52.6%, but was not statistically significant (Canonical correlation = 0.117, P = 0.230) Lip print analysis correctly identified gender in 64.8% and was statistically significant (Canonical correlation = 0.350, P < 0.001). When a combination approach was used, the gender was correctly identified in 65.8% and was statistically significant (Canonical correlation = 0.369, P < 0.001, [Table 6]). Regression equations were formulated using the current data for gender identification using Discriminant analysis as shown in [Table 7].
Table 6: Reliability of finger prints, lip prints and combination method


Click here to view
Table 7: Regression Formulae


Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Though dental profiling offers much promise in the identification of dentate individuals, it is of no use in identification of edentulous patient or when teeth had been lost due to post-mortem insults. Identification methods used in Forensic odontology other than dental profiling in such situations include molecular methods, palatal rugoscopy and cheiloscopy.[3],[4]

In the present study, it was found that no two individuals had similar type of lip prints, thus demonstrating the uniqueness of lip prints. In the present study, the most common lip print patterns observed were Type II (40.5%), III (30.15%) and I (10.75%). Type II lip print pattern was the most predominant pattern reported in studies conducted by Karki RK, et al. (39.5%),[5] Rekha VR, et al. (33.3%),[15] Nagrale N, et al. (22%)[16] and Gondivkar SM, et al. (28.59%)[2] in their population from Nepal, South Kerala, North India and last two studies from Wardha respectively. In the present study, Types IV, I' and V were less common, in accordance with Gondivkar et al.[2] Nagrale et al.[15] Verma P, et al.[17] Our results were different from those of Prabhu RV, et al. who found Type V as the most predominant pattern.[18] In the present study, when lip prints were analyzed quadrant wise, Type II, III patterns were most commonly seen in all the quadrants, in both genders in accordance with Nagrale N, et al.[16]

In the present study, the overall lip print patterns were significantly different between males and females with respect to Type I, I', II and V. Type I, I' and V were significantly more commonly seen in males, while Type II was significantly more common in females. Female preponderance of Type II found in our study was in accordance with Singh H, et al.[10] in Ambala population and Verma P, et al.[17] in Rohtak population. 23, 49 Type I and I' pattern was common in males in accordance to our finding as reported by Karki et al. in Nepal population.[5]

When finger prints were analysed, we found that in both genders, the most predominant pattern as Arches, while the least common pattern was R loops. The overall finger print pattern did not show any statistical significance except for R Loops, which were more common in left hand of males. Our results were contrary to those found by Mutalik VS,[9] who found Loop pattern in 8.3%, followed by Whorl in 21.9% and Arch in 14.28% of population. Bansal N, et al. also reported Loops and Whorls to be most common finger prints in females and males respectively.[3] Thus, it appears that finger print patterns show population differences.

When the correlation was assessed between finger print and lip prints in the present population, in males a weak positive correlation was found between Whorl and Type II lip print pattern and U Loop showed a significant weak negative correlation with Types I and V lip prints, while in females, a significant weak negative correlation was observed between Arch and Type IV lip print pattern. Mutalik VS[9] reported no significant correlation between lip prints, palatal prints and finger prints in a cohort of 100 female students of varying ethnic backgrounds staying in university campus. The difference in results could be possibly be explained by varying ethnicity in their study population. Mergud R, et al.[19] reported branched lip pattern was associated with loop and arch in females, while reticular and vertical lip patterns were associated with whorl. However statistical correlation was not done in their study.

In the present study, linear regression equations were derived for gender identification through valuation of finger print, lip print and combination method. In the present study, finger print analysis correctly classified gender in 52.6%, but was not statistically significant. Lip print analysis correctly identified gender in 64.8% and was statistically significant, while when a combination approach was used, the gender was correctly identified in 65.8% and was statistically significant. Thus, when reliability of individual technique in gender identification was assessed, lip prints fared better than finger prints thus increasing the scope of cheiloscopy in gender identification in Panchkula population. Our results were in accordance to Gazge NM, et al.[20] who could classify 78% of males and 82% of females correctly through lip print pattern, but reported an overall accuracy of 60% when comparing the actual and estimated lip prints. However the accuracy of gender identification was higher (80%) in their study and the variation in result may be attributed to the fact that they had utilized finger print ridge density and not pattern for their analysis. Gazge NM, et al. however conducted the study in a sample of 100 subjects of varying ethnic backgrounds, thus precluding exact comparison. They had also not used a combination approach for identification of gender, as used in this study. The combination approach gave best results in the present study for correct gender identification thus proving our hypothesis. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first of its kind which assessed the reliability of lip print, finger print pattern assessment and a combination approach in gender identification.

Combination approach can help in limiting wrong identifications and will act as an adjunct in forensic sciences. If the gender of the individual is known, it is easy to short list the array of suspects of the crime. The result obtained by the present study does not prove to be an unfailing method but it does seem to get one step closer to the truth. Although not a 100% accurate method, the correlation can be used as a supplementary tool in gender determination.

The limitations of the study include small sample size, of a limited strata and age range of Panchkula population. The lip prints and finger prints used in the study were obtained specially for the purpose and the overall quality would be far superior when compared to those obtained at the crime scene. Further research may be needed to verify the derived formulae in the identification of gender in this population.


   Conclusion Top


Accuracy of lip prints for gender identification was higher when compared with finger prints. The combination method using both lip prints and finger prints was found to be the most accurate amongst the three methods and thus can be used as a supplementary tool in sex determination.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient (s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Amith HV, Ankola AV, Nagesh L. Lip prints – Can it aid in individual identification. J Oral Health Community Dent 2011;5:113-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Gondivkar SM, Indurkar A, Degwekar S, Bhowate R. Cheiloscopy for sex determination. J Forensic Dent Sci 2009;1:56-60.  Back to cited text no. 2
  [Full text]  
3.
Bansal N, Sheikh S, Bansal R, Pallagati S. Correlation between lip prints and finger prints in sex determination and pattern predominance in 5000 subjects. J Forensic Odontostomatol 2013;31;8-14.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Khanapure SC, Jain J, Ananda SR, Supreetha S, Abhishek KN, Shilpa M. Cheiloscopy: The study of lip prints in relation to gender and geographic distribution. Int J Sci Stud 2014;2:21-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Karki RK. Lip prints- an identification aid. Kathmandu Univ Med J 2012;38:55.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Venkatesh R, David MR. Cheiloscopy: An aid for personal identification. J Forensic Dent Sci 2011;3:67-70.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
7.
Swetha S. Palatal rugae patterns in varied adult Indian population of males and females. J. Pharm Sci Res 2015;7:736-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Sharma SM, Shalini K, Akshri A. Cheiloscopy- a unique forensic tool. NUJHS 2013;3:74-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Mutalik VS, Menon A, Jayalakshmi N, Kamath A, Raghu AR. Utility of cheiloscopy, rugoscopy and dactyloscopy for human identification in a defined cohort. J Forensic Dent Sci 2013;5:2-6.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
10.
Singh H, Chikara P, Singhroha R. Lip print as evidence. JPAFMAT 2011;11:23-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Lawrence OG, Veridicom I, Chatham NJ. Finger Print Verification. Vol 3. California Elsevier; 1998. p. 1-23.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Nagasupriya A, Dhanpal R, Reena K, Saraswathi T, Ramachandran C. Pattern – “A crime solver. J Forensic Dent Sci 2011;3:3-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
13.
Cummins H, Midlo C. Finger prints palms and soles. 1943. Available from: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli. 2015.143762/page/n3.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Tsuchihashi Y. Studies on personal identification by means of lip prints. Forensic Sci 1974;3:233-48.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Rekha VR, Sunil S, Rathy R. Heritability and correlation of lip prints and palmprints in South Kerala population. Oral Maxillofac Pathol J 2015;6:544-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Nagrale N, Tirpude B, Murkey P, Patond S. Establishing cheiloscopy as a tool for identification: An assessment on 500 subjects in central India Al Ameen J Med Sci 2014;7:201-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Verma P, Sachdeva SK, Verma KG, Saharan S, Sachdeva K. Correlation of lip prints with gender, ABO blood groups and inter commissural distance. North Am J Med Sci 2013;5:427-1.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
18.
Prabhu RV, Dinkar A, Prabhu V. A study of lip print pattern in Goan dental students- A digital approach. J Forensic Leg Med 2012;9:390-5.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Metgud R, Kaur M, Naik S, Tak A, Patel S. Correlation between lip prints and finger prints in Gujrati population- a forensic study. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res 2016;4:30-4.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Gazge NM, Pachipulusu B, Chandra P, Malligere SB, Govindaraju P, Pawar Y. Assessment of reliability of cheiloscopy and dactyloscopy in human identification by digital methods: A cross sectional study. Int J Forensic Odontol 2018; 3:72-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
  [Full text]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

   Abstract Introduction Methods Methodology Results Discussion Conclusion Article Figures Article Tables
  In this article
 References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed101    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded59    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]