Introduction
Bilaterally symmetrical development takes place in many parts of the body which means that the right and left side should have been mirror images.However bilateral symmetry is rarely present.Mild degree of asymmetry is called relative symmetry or subclinical asymmetry.1 Obvious facial asymmetry is noticeable and is associated with functional issues as well as esthetics. It can negetively affect personality and confidence of an individual. Chia et al 2 suggested that asymmetries could have pathological, traumatic, functional or developmental causal factors. Haraguchi et al3 claimed that the etiology of facial asymmetry can be grouped into hereditary factors of prenatal origin and acquired factors of postnatal origin. Conversely, Cheong and Lo 4 reported that the causes of facial asymmetry can be grouped into three main categories: (I) congenital, of prenatal origin; (II) acquired, resulting from injury or disease; and (III) developmental, arising during development and of unknown etiology. The lip prints are unique to an individual just like the fingerprints and shows strong hereditary pattern. 5 It also has been proved that lip prints recover after undergoing alterations such as minor trauma, inflammation and herpes and that the disposition and form of furrows does not vary with environmental factors. The study of lip prints is referred as Cheiloscopy. Lip prints consists of normal lines and fissures in the forms of wrinkles and grooves present in the zone of transition of human lip between the inner labial mucosa and outer skin. 6 Lip groove pattern are established during 6th week of intrauterine life. The basis of studying the relationship between lip print pattern and various dental anomalies is due to the development of teeth and associated structures, which coincides with the development of epidermal ridges during the 6th -13th week of intrauterine life. 7 Though facial asymmetry is generally evaluated using facial photograph or PA ceph but it was decided to see if there is variation in chieloscopic pattern in subjects with facial asymmetry. Considering this, it was decided to compare cheiloscopic pattern between subjects with clinically obvious facial asymmetry to normal subjects with no clinically obvious facial asymmetry.
Materials and Methods
Sample: Cheiloscopic pattern of 30 subjects were equally divided in 2 groups based on clinical examination-GROUP 1(normal with no facial asyemmtry) GROUP II (subjects with obvious facial asymmetry).
Method
The participants were asked to sit in relaxed position on a dental chair
The lips of the participants were cleaned with the help of wet cotton
A portion of red‑colored lipstick was cut with the help of Bard‑Parker (No. 15) knife to avoid cross contamination and was put into the dappen dish.
It was applied on the lips with the help of lip brush
The participants were asked to rub both the lips together to spread the lipstick
The photo paper strip was placed over the lips, and lip impression was made by pressing the photo paper strip first at the center of the lips followed by uniformly pressing it toward corner of the lips.
The lip impressions were then visualized with the use of a magnifying lens and was assessed as per Tsuschihashi classification for each sample in 3 zones each (C-centre, R-right, L-left).
Type I – Complete vertical groove (CVG)
Type I’ – Partial vertical groove (PVG)
Type II – Forked groove (FG)
Type III – Intersecting groove (IG)
Type IV – Reticular groove (RG)
Type V – Undetermined groove (XG).
Table 1
Observation of cheiloscopic pattern of right side for Group I and Group II.
Table 2
Observation of cheiloscopic pattern of cetntre for Group I and Group II.
Table 3
Observation of cheiloscopic pattern of left side for Group I and Group II.
Discussion
Among the different forensic techniques prevailing in the modern day scenario, cheiloscopy holds a prominent place in personal identification and sex determination. Lip groove pattern are established during 6th week of intrauterine life. The basis of studying the relationship between lip print pattern and various dental anomalies is due to the development of teeth and associated structures, which coincides with the development of epidermal ridges during the 6th -13th week of intrauterine life. Several studies have shown correlation between lip prints and dental caries and malocclusion. Aditi et al 20218 observed Type I’ PVG was most prevalent in skeletal Class I malocclusion and Class II Division 2 malocclusion, Type III IG was most prevalent in skeletal Class II Division 1 malocclusion, Type I CVG was most prevalent in skeletal Class III malocclusion. Kulkarni N et al, 20129 observed that a combination of 1, III; 1′, III; and II, III types of lip prints were predominant in skeletal class I group of individuals. 1, IV and III, IV types of lip print combinations were predominant among skeletal class III group of patients. 1, II type of lip print combination was observed to be more predominant among skeletal class II individuals. Jalannavar P, Prasad R, PatiL P, 20186 observed prevalence of dental caries was higher among children with branched groove lip patterns and malocclusion among reticular lip patterns. Considering the variation of lip print pattern with malocclusion it was thought that variation might also be observed in subjects with facial asymmetry. Asymmetries could have pathological, traumatic, functional or developmental causal factors. Facial asymmetry of developmental or congenital origin might show alteration in lip pattern. However none of the studies compared obvious facial asymmetry with cheiloscopic pattern and hence no direct comparisons could be made. In this study For right zone, Type I’ was most common, both for Group I (40%) and Group II (46.7%)(Figure 3). In centre zone, Type I was most common (46.7%) followed by Type II for group I, Type II was most common (40%) followed by Type I(33.3%)for Group II(Figure 4). On left side, Type I and I’ are most common(26%) followed by Type II(20%) for Group I and Type I’ (46.6%) is most common followed by Type I and Type II for Group II(Figure 5). There was no statistical significant difference between the type of lip pattern for two groups in each zone (C,R.L). Within the limitation of the study done on smaller sample size it can be stated that chieloscopic pattern did not show variation with facial asymmetry. Further studies with larger sample size and including different malocclusion can be conducted.
