author = {Sharma, Tamanna. and Chaitan, S. and Somayaji, Nagaveni. and Mahajan, Bela. and Rajguru, Jagadish. and Hajibabaei, Sahar. and Hegde, Shilpa.}, title = {{The medicolegal importance of establishing human identity by using dactyloscopy and rugoscopy: A comparative study}}, journal ={Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care}, volume ={9}, number ={7}, pages = {3236-3241}, doi = {10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_545_20}, year = {2020}, abstract ={ Background: Palatal rugae are irregular and asymmetric mesenchymal ridges that extend in a lateral direction away from the incisive papilla and mid-palatine raphe. Their unique characteristics and environmental stableness justify their inclusion in forensic investigations. Dermatoglyphics or fingerprint patterns are epidermal ridges, which are genetically controlled and are specific to an individual. Hence they are used as a forensic tool. Objectives: The study aimed to assess the reliability of Rugoscopic and Dermatoglyphic patterns for gender identification. Materials and Methods: A total of 200 subjects were recruited in this prospective study. All subjects were between the age range of 18 and 55 years. The subjects were categorized into 100 males and 100 females. Fingerprint dermatoglyphic patterns were recorded using stamp pad, ink, and A4 size white sheets. A subject's fingers were pressed onto the stamped ink pad and lightly pressed over a sheet of paper. Obtained patterns were coded and analyzed as per Galton's criteria into arch, loop, and whorl patterns. Palatal rugae patterns were obtained by making alginate impression material and impression trays. Obtained casts were analyzed for rugae pattern analysis using Kapali's classification. An unpaired t test was used as a statistical tool. Results: On analyzing dermatoglyphic patterns, the arch pattern was most common among male subjects, whereas loop pattern was found to be most common among females. On rugoscopic pattern analysis, Straight pattern was most frequent among males, whereas the circular pattern was common among females. Conclusion: A statistically significant difference was noted between gender and rugoscopic patterns (P = 0.02) and dermatoglyphic patterns (P = 0.03). }, URL ={;year=2020;volume=9;issue=7;spage=3236;epage=3241;aulast=Sharma;t=6}, eprint ={;year=2020;volume=9;issue=7;spage=3236;epage=3241;aulast=Sharma;t=6} }