• Users Online: 277
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 30-37

Correlation of dermatoglyphics patterns with skeletal malocclusion


1 Department of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Santosh Dental College and Hospital, Santosh University, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Private Practitioner

Date of Submission16-Feb-2022
Date of Decision19-Apr-2022
Date of Acceptance25-Apr-2022
Date of Web Publication21-Jul-2022

Correspondence Address:
Nidhi Gupta
Professor, Department of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Santosh Dental College and Hospital, Santosh University, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad - 201 009, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sujhs.sujhs_1_22

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Dermatoglyphic Patterns and Skeletal Malocclusion: Dermatoglyphics is the study of the intricate dermal patterns found on the skin of the palmar and plantar surfaces of the hands and feet. The term dermatoglyphics means “skin carving.” He has proven to be of predictive value for both genetic and nongenetic diseases in the medical field. It has been noted that the period of embryonic development for oral and dermal tissues overlaps. Thus, any impact on the development of oral tissues during this period may also represent itself in the dermatoglyphic patterns.
Aim: Keeping this in mind, the present study was designed to investigate the correlation between malocclusions and representation in dermatoglyphic patterns.
Materials and Methodology: A total of 90 subjects were selected for the study. Thirty cases each of Class I, Class II, and Class III skeletal malocclusions were selected from the age group of 13–18 years of age with permanent molars present. Lateral cephalograms were taken and their dermatoglyphic patterns were recorded by rolling impression technique. The dermatoglyphic data were assessed for different finger ridge patterns and total ridge count (TRC).
Results: On comparison of dermatoglyphic patterns between skeletal Class I, II, and III, the skeletal Class I group showed a markedly decreased number of loops and increased TRC. In the skeletal Class II group, we found markedly increased number of loops and markedly decreased TRC. In the skeletal Class III group, we observed a markedly decreased number of arches and increased TRC. Loops were found to be the most predominant pattern in the skeletal Class II and III groups. The mean TRC was found to be increased in the skeletal Class III group, followed by the Class I group and markedly decreased in the skeletal Class II group, which was statistically significant.
Conclusion: It is concluded that dermatoglyphics can be used as a screening tool and for the early prediction of skeletal malocclusion at a younger age group. Dermatoglyphics have important practical and clinical implications which can be applied for preventive and interceptive orthodontics among pediatric patients and also for parent counseling.

Keywords: Dermatoglyphics, skeletal malocclusion, total ridge count


How to cite this article:
Singh R, Gupta N, Rana M, Gambhir N. Correlation of dermatoglyphics patterns with skeletal malocclusion. Santosh Univ J Health Sci 2022;8:30-7

How to cite this URL:
Singh R, Gupta N, Rana M, Gambhir N. Correlation of dermatoglyphics patterns with skeletal malocclusion. Santosh Univ J Health Sci [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Dec 8];8:30-7. Available from: http://www.sujhs.org/text.asp?2022/8/1/30/351558




  Introduction Top


Dermatoglyphics refers to the study of the intricate dermal ridge configurations on the skin covering the palmar and plantar surfaces of hands and feet.[1] The term dermatoglyphics was coined by anatomist Harold Cummins and Charles Midlo in 1926, meaning “a skin carving.”[1],[2]

Dermatoglyphics comprises varied and intricate patterns of the dermal ridges on the skin surfaces of man and that of other mammals. These have fascinated many researchers and thus have been investigated in various fields such as genetics, anthropology, and forensic medicine.[3]

The dermatoglyphic patterns appear first during the 3rd and 4th months of intrauterine life and, once established, never alter except in overall size.[1] These patterns of epidermal ridges are characteristic for an individual.[2]

Holt (1968) and Verbov (1970) suggested that dermatoglyphics can aid in the diagnosis of genetic and nongenetic disease, thus strengthening its predictive validity of the medical field.[2],[3]

Recently, it has been observed that there is an increased trend of investigating genetic factors relating to oral diseases in dental research, including conditions such as congenital hypodontia by Atasu et al. in 1997, microdontia by Atasu et al. in 1998, bruxism by Polat et al. in 2000, oral clefts by Mathew et al. 2005, and molar relations by Reddy et al. 1997.[1],[4],[5],[6]

The embryological origin of oral and dermatoglyphic patterns occurs along the same time of fetal development, i.e., the 7th–12th week of intrauterine life. Both skin and epithelium of palate and enamel have the same ectodermal origin. Therefore, any abnormalities noticed in dentition may also be reflected as dermal ridge altercations. These altercations in dermal patterns may be used as an easily accessible tool for the study of chromosomal and genetic disorders.[7]

Keeping this in mind, the present study was designed to evaluate different dermatoglyphic patterns and their correlation with different types of skeletal malocclusions. This can also be applied for parental education and counseling. It may also be used for early diagnosis of developing malocclusions and planning of preventive and interceptive pediatric dentistry.

Aims and objectives

The study was designed with the following aims and objectives:

  • To record the fingerprint patterns and evaluate them for subjects with skeletal Class I pattern (control group) and for subjects with skeletal Class II and Class III malocclusion patterns
  • To assess the relationship between different fingerprint patterns and their correlation with the type of malocclusion and to ascertain its reliability to detect early skeletal malocclusion.



  Materials and Methodology Top


The study consisted of 90 healthy controls with ages ranging from 13 to 18 years selected from the outpatient department of the Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry.

An approval was obtained from the ethical committee of institution. All participants were given a brief explanation about the aim of the study and the methods that would be carried out.

Written informed consent was obtained from every participant, before being a part of the study.

The study sample contained 30 cases each of Class I (control group), Class II, and Class III malocclusions.

Inclusion criteria

  • Children with age range: 13–18 years, with sound first permanent molars
  • Normal healthy children with unrestored, noncarious teeth
  • Subjects with Class I, Class II, and Class III malocclusions.


Exclusion criteria

  • Any malformation syndromes associated with maxilla and mandible
  • Patients undergone orthognathic surgery of the maxilla or mandible
  • Subjects with facial asymmetry acquired skeletal defects
  • Inherited and systemic disorders such as diabetes, hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis, and psychosis
  • Subjects with congenital or acquired deformities of the fingers
  • Or wounds, scars, amputated, and artificial prosthesis of fingers
  • Subjects with skin diseases affecting the fingers.


Armamentarium

  • Kidney tray, disposable mouth mask [Figure 1]
  • Mouth mirror, straight probe, tweezer, cotton holder with cotton, and sterile gloves [Figure 1]
  • Black duplicating ink, magnifying lens, scale, pencil, rubber, and cotton [Figure 2].
Figure 1: Kidney tray, mouth mask, Mouth mirror, Straight probe, Tweezer, Cotton holder with cotton, Sterile gloves

Click here to view
Figure 2: Black duplicating ink, magnifying lens, scale, pencil, rubber, cotton

Click here to view


A lateral cephalograms of the subjects were taken with the help of the KODAK 8000 Digital Panoramic System [Figure 3].
Figure 3: KODAK 8000 Digital Panoramic System

Click here to view


Skeletal malocclusion was assessed by tracing the following parameters [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]:
Figure 4: Class I

Click here to view
Figure 5: Class II

Click here to view
Figure 6: CLASS III

Click here to view


Steiner's analysis

  • SNA-Normal SNA 82° ± 2°
  • SNB-Normal SNB-78° ± 2°
  • ANB-Normal ANB-0.1°–4°.


  • Skeletal Class II-ANB >4°
  • Skeletal Class III-ANB <0°.


Down's analysis

Facial angle: Normal facial angle: 82°–95°.

Cephalometric analysis

Procedure for obtaining dermatoglyphic prints

The selected study subject was asked to wash their hands with soap solution and pat dry with the help of towel. This was done to remove natural oils present in ridges and also dirt particles. This helped in improving the quality of the dermatoglyphic prints obtained.

The impressions were taken using a rolling impression technique. In this technique, duplicating ink was applied on the finger surfaces of the left and right hands using cotton rolls. The prints were then recorded on an A-3 size nonblotting sheet [Figure 7]a and [Figure 7]b.
Figure 7: Ink applied on fingers (a). Fingerprints taken by rolling technique (b)

Click here to view


After obtaining good fingerprints, the subjects were instructed to wash their hands with soap and water to remove the ink.

The collected data were analyzed for various qualitative and quantitative dermatoglyphic patterns.

Qualitative dermatoglyphic analysis

In qualitative data analysis, different dermatoglyphic patterns were analyzed into:

  • Arches (A): (A) plain arch; (b) tented arch
  • Loops (L): (A) radial loop; (b) ulnar loop
  • Whorls (W): (A) plain;(b) central pocket; (c) double; (d) accidental whorls [Figure 9].
Figure 8: Class I, class II, class III dermatoglyphic patterns

Click here to view
Figure 9: (a) Arch, (b) Loop, (c) Whorl

Click here to view


Quantitative dermatoglyphic analysis

In quantitative data analysis, different dermatoglyphic patterns were analyzed into [Figure 10]:
Figure 10: Total ridge count, tri-radius

Click here to view


  • Total ridge count (TRC)
  • Triradius/delta.



  Results Top


The study sample comprising a total of 90 subjects was divided into three groups.

  • Group I consisted of 30 subjects of skeletal Class I (control group)
  • Group II consisted of 30 subjects of skeletal Class II and
  • Group III consisted of 30 subjects of skeletal Class III.


The mean age of skeletal Class I subjects was 23.67 years ± 2.04 standard deviation (SD), that of skeletal Class II subjects was 22.53 years ± 2.57 SD, and that of skeletal Class III subjects was 24.50 years ± 3.47 SD [Graph 1].



Among skeletal Class I, 19 subjects (63%) were males and 11 (37%) were females. In skeletal Class II, 15 subjects (50%) were males and 15 (50%) were females. In skeletal Class III, 21 subjects (70%) were males and 9 (30%) were females. In the total sample, 55 (61%) were males and 35 (39%) were females [Graph 2].



Finger ridge patterns – loops

  • There was no significant difference among the groups with respect to the mean number of loops in the left and right hand
  • The mean number of loops in the skeletal Class II group was found to be markedly increased, followed by the Class III group. However, in the skeletal Class I group, the number of loops was markedly decreased [Graph 3].



Finger ridge patterns – arches

  • There was no significant difference among the groups with respect to the mean number of arches in the left and right hand
  • The mean number of arches in the skeletal Class II group was found to be increased, followed by the skeletal Class I group. Whereas there was a marked decrease in the number of arches in the skeletal Class III group [Graph 4].



Finger ridge patterns-whorls

  • There was no significant difference among the groups with respect to the mean number of whorls in the left and right hand
  • The mean number of whorls was increased in both skeletal Class I and III groups. The skeletal Class II group showed decreased number of whorls [Graph 5].



Predominance of finger ridge patterns

  • Loops were found to be the most predominant pattern and were markedly increased in the skeletal Class II and III groups. Arches were least in number among the compared patterns. Whorls were increased in the skeletal Class I group, followed by the Class III group [Graph 6].



Total ridge count

  • Pair-wise comparisons using the Bonferroni test resulted in a statistically significant difference between the skeletal Class II and Class III groups (P < 0.05) [Table 1].
Table 1:

Click here to view


Total ridge count

  • The mean TRC was found to be the highest in the skeletal Class III group, followed by the skeletal Class I group, whereas they were markedly decreased in the skeletal Class II group [Graph 7].




  Discussion Top


The study of the pattern of dermal ridges has long fascinated men through the ages and attempts have been made to predict the future of individuals based on the ridge patterns. After Galton's rule called “proof of no change.” Dermatoglyphics has recently gained a lot of interest in the fields of forensic medicine and odontology, also for medical genetics and anthropology.[8]

The term “dermatoglyphics” signifies cutaneous ridges present on the dermal surfaces of fingers, palms, and soles, that have formed during the 7th and 21st week of gestation and established by the 24th week of intrauterine life.[3],[9]

The development of the primary palate begins and the lip gets completed by the 7th week of intrauterine life and that of the secondary palate by 12th week. It has been seen that the dermal ridges also attain their maximum by the 12–13th week of intrauterine life. This signifies that if there is the presence of any genetic message in the genome, it will be presented during this period in the maxillary arches and in occlusion, and may also be presented in the dermatoglyphic patterns.[7],[10] Henceforth, any deviation in the normal occlusion due to any extrinsic factors during the developmental period will be reflected in dermal patterns of finger ridges. Considering the same, dermatoglyphics can serve as an easily accessible tool for the study of genetic diseases.[3],[9]

One of the major problems and genetic overtones with which the dentist is confronted is malocclusion.[1] Malocclusion is a developmental deformity which may be of dental and/or skeletal origin and may be minor or major in its presentation. Skeletal malocclusion may be defined as a set of human craniofacial morphologic characteristics that present in excess or deficiency of what appears to be normal and may thus result in minor to major deformities of dental/skeletal structure.

The dermatoglyphic analysis is a noninvasive and an inexpensive tool for analyzing malocclusions and their genetic association.[11] Hence, the present study was undertaken to evaluate dermatoglyphic patterns and correlate them with skeletal malocclusions.

The present study was undertaken to evaluate dermatoglyphic patterns and correlate them with skeletal malocclusions. Subjects were selected from those visiting the Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Santosh Dental College and Hospital, Santosh University, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, NCR Delhi.

The study sample consisted of 90 subjects and was divided into three groups. Group I consisted of 30 subjects of skeletal Class I (control group), Group II consisted of 30 subjects of skeletal Class II, and Group III consisted of 30 subjects of skeletal Class III.

An informed consent from the study subjects, after which their case history was recorded and a clinical examination was carried out. The subjects were then subjected to lateral cephalogram using KODAK-8000 Digital Panoramic System following radiation protection protocol confirm the type of skeletal malocclusion. Dermatoglyphic patterns were recorded using ink and rolling impression technique on recording sheets. Recorded data were subjected to statistical analysis.

The mean age of skeletal Class I subjects was 23.67 years ± 2.04 SD, that of skeletal Class II subjects was 22.53 years ± 2.57 SD, and that of skeletal Class III subjects was 24.50 years ± 3.47 SD.

This age group was selected as the growth of the maxilla and mandible gets completed by the age of 17–18 years and any growth deviation from the normal may be completely established by then.

Among 90 subjects, 55 (61%) were male and 35 (39%) were female. We observed male preponderance over females with a ratio of 1.57:1. This finding is consistent with studies by Oluranti et al. and Boeck et al. who observed a high male-to-female ratio with respect to dental and skeletal malocclusions at the time of diagnosis, respectively.[12],[13]

The results showed that the mean number of loops was found to be markedly increased in the skeletal Class II group, followed by the Class III group. However, the skeletal Class I group showed a markedly decreased number of loops.

This result was consistent with Reddy et al. and. Trehan et al. who also found an increased ulnar loop frequency in skeletal Class II div 2 malocclusions and increased radial loops frequency in dental Class II div 1 malocclusions.[1],[3] Slatis et al. stated that ulnar loops are the most common fingerprint pattern seen.[14]

The mean number of arches was found to be increased in the skeletal Class II group, followed by the Class I group. The skeletal Class III group showed a markedly decreased number of arches. No significant difference was observed among the groups with respect to the mean number of arches (P > 0.05).

This finding is consistent with Trehan et al. and Reddy et al. who found the increased number of arches in dental Class I and Class II div 1 and div 2 malocclusions.[1],[4]

X-linked chromosomal inheritance may be a reason for increase in the number of arches in the skeletal Class II and Class I groups. Chromosomal genes such as the X chromosome and chromosomes 18 and 21 may influence dermatoglyphics, resulting in alteration of dermal patterns.

The mean number of whorls was increased in both skeletal Class I and Class III groups. The skeletal Class II group showed decreased number of whorls. No significant difference was observed among the groups with respect to the mean number of whorls (P > 0.05).

This finding was in accordance with Trehan et al.[4] reporting an increased whorls frequency in dental Class I and Class III malocclusions in comparison to normal occlusion. This observation was also consistent with the study done by Reddy et al. reporting increased whorls frequency in the control group, attributed to its X-linked inheritance.[1]

With regard to the timing of the development of patterns, whorls are the first to develop in the distal digit segment, followed by loops and arches. A dominant mode of inheritance has been postulated for the total number of whorls.[15]

A dominant mode of inheritance has been postulated for the total number of whorls. The increased number of whorls in skeletal Class III could be due to the morphological changes in jaw size and facial profile from Class III to Class I, which could have been changed from early human evolution.

This could suggest that these forms of prognathism are correlated with that of human evolution and are characterized by a process of joint and integrated change from a more prognathic to a more orthognathic facial morphology.[16] Although modern human beings have quite underdeveloped jaws when compared to primitive people, this could be attributed to the changes in lifestyle, diet, and environment.[17] There is also the presence of racial variation in the morphology of human jaws with pronounced prognathism, or alveolar projection, as seen in Negroids.[18]

Loops were found to be the most predominant pattern and were markedly increased in skeletal Class II and III groups. Arches were least in number among the compared patterns. Whorls were increased in the skeletal Class I group, followed by the skeletal Class III group. No significant association was observed between the groups and the predominant pattern (P > 0.05).

This finding is in contrast with a study by Tikare et al., who noticed that whorl patterns were significantly associated with dental Class I and II malocclusions.[9]

This finding is also confirmed by Kharbanda et al.[19] Increased number of loops is associated with a decreased number of whorls and arches, which is also similar to the observation made by Holt and Shiono. The present study also reported with an increased mean TRC in the skeletal Class III group, followed by the Class I group, whereas the skeletal Class II group showed markedly decreased mean TRC.

This result was consistent with a study done by Trehan et al. who also reported an increase in TRC was increased in both dental Class III subjects and in the Class I control group.[3]

The mean number of total finger ridge counts was increased in the skeletal Class III and Class I groups. This is because TRC is completely dependent upon the additive and codominant genes. Furthermore, its mode of inheritance is polygenic in nature. Similar findings were also seen in studies done by Holt and Penrose and Losch.[2],[20]


  Conclusion Top


Thus, the study concluded that TRC was one of the most consistent and reliable parameters for genetic investigations. Therefore its inherited metrical character may be used as a sensitive screening indicator for early detection of skeletal malocclusion.

Henceforth, we can recommend the use of TRC along with other dermatoglyphic parameters to predict skeletal malocclusion at a younger age group to provide early treatment, reduce cost, time of treatment, and later complications. It is also an easily accessible, economical, and noninvasive marker for the initial diagnosis of skeletal malocclusion.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Reddy S, Prabhakar AR, Reddy VV. A dermatoglyphic predictive and comparative study of Class I, Class II, div. 1, div. 2 and Class III malocclusions. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 1997;15:13-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Verbov J. Clinical significance and genetics of epidermal ridges – A review of dermatoglyphics. J Invest Dermatol 1970;54:261-71.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Verjov J. Clinical significance and genetics of epidermal ridges. A review of dermatoglyphics. J Invest Dermatol 1970;54:261-71.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Trehan M, Kapoor DN, Tandon P, Sharma VP. Dermatoglyphic study of normal occlusion and malocclusion. J Indian Orthod Soc 2000; 33:11-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Atasu M. Dermatoglyphic findings in dental caries: A preliminary report. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;22:147-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Polat M, Azak A, Evlioglu G, Malkondu O, Atasu M. The relation of bruxism and dermatoglyphics. The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. 2000;24:191-4.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Mathew L, Hegde AM, Rai K. Dermatoglyphic peculiarities in children with oral clefts. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2005;23:179-82.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
8.
Tikare S, Rajesh G, Prasad KW, Thippeswamy V, Javali SB. Dermatoglyphics – A marker for malocclusion? Int Dent J 2010;60:300-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Milicić J, Bujas Petković Z, Bozikov J. Dermatoglyphs of digito-palmar complex in autistic disorder: Family analysis. Croat Med J 2003;44:469-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Greenberg BL. Etiology of skeletal malocclusion. Craniomaxillofacial reconstructive and corrective bone surgery. New York: Springer; 2002.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Miller JR. Dermatoglyphics. J Invest Dermatol 1973;60:435-2.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Oluranti OD, Ifeoma LU. Referral mode and pattern of malocclusion among patients attending the Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos, Nigeria. Odontostomatol Trop 2009;32:17-23.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Boeck EM, Lunardi N, Pinto Ados S, Pizzol KE, Boeck Neto RJ. Occurrence of skeletal malocclusions in brazilian patients with dentofacial deformities. Braz Dent J 2011;22:340-5.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Slatis HM, Katznelson MB, Bonné-Tamir B. The inheritance of fingerprint patterns. Am J Hum Genet 1976;28:280-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Alter M, Schulenberg R. Dermatoglyphics in congenital heart disease. Circulation 1970;41:49-54.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Profitt WR, Fields Jr., HW. Contemporary orthodontics. 2nd ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby- Year Book Inc.; 1993.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Blumenfeld J. Racial identification in the skull and teeth. Totem: Univ Western Ont J Anthropol 2000;8:20-33.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Om K, Sharma V, Gupta D. Dermatoglyphic evaluation of mandibular prognathism. J Indian Dent Assoc 1982;54:179-86.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Penrose LS, Losch D. The Effect of Sex Chromosome on Some Characteristics of Dermal Ridges on Palm and Finger Tips. Genet Pol 1969;10:328-60.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Holt SB. Quantitative genetics of finger-print patterns. Br Med Bull 1961;17:247-50.  Back to cited text no. 20
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8], [Figure 9], [Figure 10]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

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)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed733    
    Printed84    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded44    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal