| Literature DB >> 31680755 |
Jyotirmoy Roy1, Muraleedharan M Rohith1, Debesh Nilendu1, Abraham Johnson1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Teeth are invaluable in both the living and the deceased for forensic identification and profiling purposes. The occlusal surface patterns in the molars of an individual depend on both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The individualistic nature of the groove pattern can be used to determine the identity of an individual by the process of comparative identification. AIM ANDEntities:
Keywords: Antimere; digital analysis; groove pattern; identification; molars; uniqueness
Year: 2019 PMID: 31680755 PMCID: PMC6822311 DOI: 10.4103/jfo.jfds_73_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Forensic Dent Sci ISSN: 0975-1475
Figure 1Digital Superimposition (A: Discrepancy of developmental groove pattern alignment, B: Discrepancy of supplemental groove pattern alignment, C: Discrepancy in the number of supplemental groove)
Frequency of pattern seen in current sample
| Tooth type | “Y” pattern, | “+” pattern, | “X” pattern, | “H” pattern, | Branched “H” pattern, | “µ” pattern, | Undefined, |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maxillary first molar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 (37.5) | 24 (60) | 0 | 1 (2.5) |
| Maxillary second molar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 (45) | 14 (35) | 5 (12.5) | 3 (7.5) |
| Mandibular first molar | 30 (75) | 10 (25) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mandibular second molar | 2 (5) | 38 (95) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Distribution of groove pattern among males and females
| Type of groove pattern | Males | Females | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UM1 | UM2 | LM1 | LM2 | UM1 | UM2 | LM1 | LM2 | |
| “Y” pattern | 0 | 0 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 1 |
| “+” pattern | 0 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 19 |
| “X” pattern | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| “h” pattern | 8 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Branched “H” pattern | 11 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| “U” pattern | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Abstract | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
UM: Upper molar, LM: Lower molar
Figure 2Different types of groove pattern
Figure 3Digital Comparison (a: Groove pattern on maxillary second molar; b: Traced groove pattern for comparison; c: Comparison with antimere; d-f: Comparison with same tooth of different cast)
Frequency of traits found in the occlusal surface of the molars on digital comparison
| Tooth | Upper first molar (%) | Upper second molar (%) | Lower first molar (%) | Lower second molar (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trait | Variant | ||||
| Central groove | Straight | 40 | 57.5 | 50 | 70 |
| Wavy | 60 | 42.5 | 50 | 30 | |
| Grooves at triangular fossae | Branched | 67.5 | 70 | 56.25 | 60 |
| Unbranched | 32.5 | 30 | 43.75 | 40 | |
| Buccal and lingual/palatal groove configuration | Unbranched | 2.5 | 22.5 | 6.25 | 30 |
| Only buccal groove branched | 45 | 32.5 | 6.25 | 20 | |
| Only lingual/palatal groove branched | 15 | 10 | 50 | 20 | |
| Both branched | 37.5 | 35 | 37.50 | 30 | |
| Marginal grooves | Present | 37.5 | 42.5 | 37.50 | 40 |
| Absent | 62.5 | 57.5 | 62.50 | 60 | |
| Supplemental grooves | Absent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 |
| Unbranched | 7.5 | 12.5 | 75 | 30 | |
| Branched | 2.5 | 2.5 | 12.50 | 20 | |
| Mixed | 90 | 85 | 12.50 | 35 | |
| Uniqueness | 90 | 90 | 75 | 85 | |
Result based on digital superimposition
| Tooth type | Matching, | Not matching | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discrepancy in one parameter, | Discrepancy in two parameters, | Discrepancy in three parameters, | Total, | ||
| Maxillary first molar | 7 (17.5) | 11 (33.33) | 13 (39.39) | 9 (27.27) | 33 (82.5) |
| Maxillary second molar | 6 (15) | 7 (20.58) | 14 (41.17) | 13 (38.23) | 34 (85) |
| Mandibular first molar | 15 (62.5) | 7 (28) | 5 (20) | 13 (52) | 25 (62.5) |
| Mandibular second molar | 8 (80) | 10 (31.25) | 16 (50) | 6 (18.75) | 32 (80) |
Parameters are as follows - 1. Discrepancy of developmental groove pattern alignment, 2. Discrepancy of supplemental groove pattern alignment, 3. Discrepancy in the number of supplemental groove