globes that have affected victims and family member’s life. For all these crimes, it is vital to identify criminal human type which is a vital step for determination of relation between legal and social levels. Forensic sciences play a vital role in crime identification and allowing criminal justice. Forensic science is a branch which includes pathology, odontology, tool mark analysis, bloodstain pattern analysis, dactylography (finger print analysis), and/or DNA analysis. Along with DNA and fingerprints analysis, dental identification as rugae patterns, bite marks, and lip prints help significantly in procedure identification concerning various aspects.¹

Dentists have a primary role in forensic identification with main role being played by forensic odontology that deals in proper examination and handling of presentations of dental findings and dental evidences. Following FDI, forensic odontology is a branch of dentistry that in the interest of justice deals with proper handling and examination of dental evidence and with the proper evolution and presentation of dental findings. Forensic odontology is the study of dental applications in legal proceedings and presumes a multidisciplinary approach.²

In 1950s, research has been done on using lip prints for identification of humans which was implemented and newer developments were done in following years 1960s and 1970s. Fingerprints and lip prints in forensic odontology function as vital diagnostic aid. As every subject has unique analogues to fingerprints and lip print. However, by deep focus stating that labial form a characteristic pattern called lip print. The study of lip prints is known as Cheiloscopy. There are various wrinkles and growth on lips that are named as Sulci Laborium Roborum by Tsuchihashi. There are different classifications by Suzuki and Tsuchihashi.³

In the subjects, fingerprints are vital for identification of subjects in both criminal and civil cases owing to their unique nature. Finger prints comprise of various interleaved valleys and ridges. These ridges evolve over years for main purpose of grasp and grasp. As fingerprints comprise of the valleys, they help in purpose of specific identification.⁴

Fingerprints are formed of combination of environmental and genetic factors in human body which is why fingerprint patterns even differ among the monozygotic twins, hence it can be interpreted that fingerprints are for personal identification method and are usually used in tracking the criminals.⁵ Hence, the present study was aimed to assess and identify any existing corelation between finger and lip prints concerning the gender distribution. The study also assessed the distribution of various patterns of both lip and finger prints in Indian subjects.

The present cross-sectional study was aimed to assess and identify any existing corelation between finger and lip prints concerning the gender distribution. The study also assessed the distribution of various patterns of both lip and finger prints in Indian subjects. The study was conducted at Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Verbal and written informed consent were taken from all the subjects before study participation. The study assessed 400 subjects that reported together and were in the age range of 18-25 years. The inclusion criteria for the study were young subjects visiting to the OPD of the institute without any associated disease and lips mucosa. The exclusion criteria for the study were subjects not willing to participate in the study, allergic to lipsticks, and having congenital deformities. The participants were instructed to keep their lip clean and were asked to apply thin layer of lipstick on their lips which was evenly spread. The lip prints were then recorded using cellophane technique which is considered as one of the most accurate techniques where glue present over cellophane was placed over the lips and so it sticks and record the lip print thoroughly. After few seconds, cellophane was removed carefully and was stuck on a bonded white paper. After completing the procedure, lip prints were assessed for clarity and in cases with smudging on lip pints, the same procedure was repeated again to record the lip prints. Lip prints that were gathered were assessed by an expert in all the quadrants utilizing a magnifying lens. The middle part of lower lip was 10mm wide and was considered as the study area. Lip prints classification by Suzuki was considered in the study. Using the A4 sheet, lip prints were recorded and coded following the patterns of the prints. For the process, two examiners assessed that lip prints. On the lip, lip patterns were interrupted which was following Tsuchihasi and Micheal Kucken classification. The gathered data were statistically analyzed using the chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, Mann Whitney U test, and SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk. NY, USA) using ANOVA, chi-square test, and student's t-test. The significance level was considered at a p-value of <0.05.

The present cross-sectional study was aimed to assess and identify any existing corelation between finger and lip prints concerning the gender distribution. The study also assessed the distribution of various patterns of both lip and finger prints in Indian subjects. The study assessed 400 subjects in the age range of 18 to 25 years. For all the subjects, impressions were made using lip prints and ink stamp pad which was pasted on the cellophane tape and filter paper. There were 15.5% (n=62) male and 84.5% (n=338) female subjects in the study. For distribution of lip print pattern in study subjects, they were vertical in 34% (n=136) subjects followed by reticular and branched pattern in 17.5% (n=70) subjects, intersectional in 16.5% (n=66) subjects, and undetermined in 14.5% (n=58) study subjects respectively (Table 1).

It was seen that for distribution of finger prints in study subjects on right and left thumb, whorl pattern was seen in 23% (n=92) subjects on right thumb and 24.5% (n=98) cases on left thumb, arch pattern was seen in 8.5% (n=34) right thumbs and 12.5% (n=50) left thumbs, and loop pattern in 68.5% (n=264) right thumbs and 63% (n=252) left thumbs (Table 2). Concerning distribution of finger prints in study subjects on right and left index finger, whorl was seen in 24.5% (n=98) right index and 28.5% (n=114) left index fingers, arch on 20.5% (n=82) right and 17.5% (n=70) left index fingers, and loop on 55% (n=220) right and 54% (n=216) left index fingers respectively (Table 3).

The study results showed that for distribution of finger prints in study subjects based on gender for right and left thumb, in male subjects, on left thumb prints, whorl, arch, and loop was seen in 29% (n=18), 6.5% (n=4), and 64.5% (n=40) subjects and on right thumbprint in 32.3% (n=20), 6.5% (n=4), and 61.3% (n=38) subjects respectively on right thumb. In females, whorl arch, and loop was seen in 23.7% (n=80), 13.6% (n=46), and 62.7% (n=212) subjects respectively and in 21.3% (n=72), 8.9% (n=30), and 69.8% (n=236) on right thumb print (Table 4). For gender distribution on left and right index finger, in males, whorl arch and loop was seen in 25.8% (n=16), 12.9% (n=8), and 61.3% (n=38) subjects on left index finger and in 32.3% (n=20), 16.1% (n=10), and 51.6% (n=32) males on right index finger. In females, whorl, arch, and loop was seen in 23.1% (n=78), 21.3% (n=72), and 55.6% (n=188) females on right and 29% (n=98), 18.35 (n=62), and 52.7% (n=178) females on left index finger (Table 5).

It was also seen that for lip prints in study subjects based on gender, in females, lip prints type 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were seen in 33.7% (n=114), 17.8% (n=60), 17.2% (n=58), 16% (n=54), and 15.4% (n=52) subjects respectively. In males, lip prints type 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were seen in 35.5% (n=22), 16.1% (n=10), 19.34% (n=12), 19.4% (n=12), and 9.7% (n=6) subjects respectively (Table 6).

Table 1: Distribution of lip prints in study subjects

Table 2: Distribution of finger prints in study subjects on right and left thumb

Table 3: Distribution of finger prints in study subjects on right and left index finger

Table 4: Distribution of finger prints in study subjects based on gender for right and left thumb

Table 5: Distribution of finger prints in study subjects based on gender for right and left index finger

Table 6: Distribution of lip prints in study subjects based on gender

The present study assessed 400 subjects in the age range of 18 to 25 years. For all the subjects, impressions were made using lip prints and ink stamp pad which was pasted on the cellophane tape and filter paper. There were 15.5% (n=62) male and 84.5% (n=338) female subjects in the study. For distribution of lip print pattern in study subjects, they were vertical in 34% (n=136) subjects followed by reticular and branched pattern in 17.5% (n=70) subjects, intersectional in 16.5% (n=66) subjects, and undetermined in 14.5% (n=58) study subjects respectively. These data were comparable to the previous studies of Nagasupriya A et al6 in 2011 and Srilekha N et al7 in 2014 where authors assessed subjects with demographics and lip print patterns similar to the present study in their respective studies.

The study results showed that for distribution of finger prints in study subjects on right and left thumb, whorl pattern was seen in 23% (n=92) subjects on right thumb and 24.5% (n=98) cases on left thumb, arch pattern was seen in 8.5% (n=34) right thumbs and 12.5% (n=50) left thumbs, and loop pattern in 68.5% (n=264) right thumbs and 63% (n=252) left thumbs (Table 2). Concerning distribution of finger prints in study subjects on right and left index finger, whorl was seen in 24.5% (n=98) right index and 28.5% (n=114) left index fingers, arch on 20.5% (n=82) right and 17.5% (n=70) left index fingers, and loop on 55% (n=220) right and 54% (n=216) left index fingers respectively. These results were consistent with the findings of Gondivkar SM et al8 in 2009 and Sivapathasundharam B et al9 in 2001 where distribution of finger prints in study subjects on right and left thumb as whorl, arch, and loop reported by the authors in their studies wad comparable to the results of the present study.

It was seen that for distribution of finger prints in study subjects based on gender for right and left thumb, in male subjects, on left thumb prints, whorl, arch, and loop was seen in 29% (n=18), 6.5% (n=4), and 64.5% (n=40) subjects and on right thumbprint in 32.3% (n=20), 6.5% (n=4), and 61.3% (n=38) subjects respectively on right thumb. In females, whorl arch, and loop was seen in 23.7% (n=80), 13.6% (n=46), and 62.7% (n=212) subjects respectively and in 21.3% (n=72), 8.9% (n=30), and 69.8% (n=236) on right thumb print. For gender distribution on left and right index finger, in males, whorl arch and loop were seen in 25.8% (n=16), 12.9% (n=8), and 61.3% (n=38) subjects on left index finger and in 32.3% (n=20), 16.1% (n=10), and 51.6% (n=32) males on right index finger. In females, whorl, arch, and loop was seen in 23.1% (n=78), 21.3% (n=72), and 55.6% (n=188) females on right and 29% (n=98), 18.35 (n=62), and 52.7% (n=178) females on left index finger. These findings were in agreement with the results of Saraswathi TR et al10 in 2009 and Sharma P et al11 in 2009 where finger prints in study subjects based on gender for right and left thumb comparable to the present study was also reported by the authors in their respective studies.

Concerning the assessment of the lip prints in study subjects based on gender, in females, lip prints type 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were seen in 33.7% (n=114), 17.8% (n=60), 17.2% (n=58), 16% (n=54), and 15.4% (n=52) subjects respectively. In males, lip prints type 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were seen in 35.5% (n=22), 16.1% (n=10), 19.34% (n=12), 19.4% (n=12), and 9.7% (n=6) subjects respectively. These results correlated with the findings of Acharya AB et al12 in 2012 and Caldas IM et al13 in 2007 where lip prints in study subjects based on gender reported by authors in their studies was comparable to the results of the present study.

The present study, within its limitations, concludes that forensic science is related with the dental evidence where their roles are to interpret, preserve, and collect the trace evidence and to relate to the judicial system as the report. Lip print type and pattern has potential promise as a supplementary help for identification of the gender. However, no association is seen between gender and fingerprints.

1.Synder LM. Identification of dead bodies. In: Textbook of Homicide Investigation; 1959. p. 65.

2.Omidiora EO, Ojo O, Yekini NA, Tubi TO. Analysis, design and implementation of human fingerprint patterns system “Towards Age and Gender Determination, Ridge Thickness to Valley Thickness Ratio (RTVTR) and ridge count on gender detection. Int J Adv Res Artificial Intell. 2011;1:57–63.

3. Nandy A. Principles of Forensic Medicine. 2nd ed. New 4.Central Book Agency (P) Ltd; 2001. p. 47–109.

Suzuki K, Tsuchihashi Y. New attempt of personal identification by means of lip print. J Indian Dent Assoc. 1970;42:8–9.

5.Rajendran R, Sivapathasundharam B. Shafer’s Textbook of Oral Pathology. New Delhi: Elsevier; 2012. p. 879–922.

Nagasupriya A, Dhanapal R, Saraswathi RK, Ramachandran T, C. Patterns - “A crime solver. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2011;3:3–7.

6. Srilekha N, Anuradha A, Vijay GS, Sabitha R. Lip print pattern, finger print pattern and abo blood group. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:49–51

7.Gondivkar SM, Indurkar A, Degwekar S. Cheiloscopy for sex determination. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2009;1:56–60.

Sivapathasundharam B, Prakash PA, Sivakumar G. Lip prints (cheiloscopy) Indian. J Dent Res. 2001;12:234–7

Saraswathi TR, Mishra G, Ranganathan K. Study of lip prints. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2009;1:28–31.

8.Sharma P, Saxena S, Cheiloscopy RV. The study of lip prints in sex identification. J Forensic Dent Sci. 2009;1:24–7.

9.Acharya AB, Sivapathasundharam B. Shafer’s Textbook of Oral Pathology. Rajendran R, Sivapathasundharam B, editors. New Delhi: Elsevier; 2012. p. 903–908.

10.Caldas IM, Magalhães T, Afonso A. Establishing identity using cheiloscopy and palatoscopy. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;165:1–9.