RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We know that teeth trouble us a lot when we are alive, but they last longer for thousands of years even after we are dead. Teeth being the strongest and resistant structure are the most significant tool in forensic investigations. Patterns of enamel rod end on the tooth surface are known as tooth prints. AIM: This study is aimed to know whether these tooth prints can become a forensic tool in personal identification such as finger prints. A study has been targeted toward the same. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: In the present in-vivo study, acetate peel technique has been used to obtain the replica of enamel rod end patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tooth prints of upper first premolars were recorded from 80 individuals after acid etching using cellulose acetate strips. Then, digital images of the tooth prints obtained at two different intervals were subjected to biometric conversion using Verifinger standard software development kit version 6.5 software followed by the use of Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) software for comparison of the tooth prints. Similarly, each individual's finger prints were also recorded and were subjected to the same software. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Further, recordings of AFIS scores obtained from images were statistically analyzed using Cronbach's test. RESULTS: We observed that comparing two tooth prints taken from an individual at two intervals exhibited similarity in many cases, with wavy pattern tooth print being the predominant type. However, the same prints showed dissimilarity when compared with other individuals. We also found that most of the individuals with whorl pattern finger print showed wavy pattern tooth print and few loop type fingerprints showed linear pattern of tooth prints. CONCLUSIONS: Further more experiments on both tooth prints and finger prints are required in establishing an individual's identity.
RESUMO
AIM: The aim of this study was to clinically evaluate the use of biodegradable chlorhexidine chip when used as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the treatment of moderate to severe periodontitis patients. The study also intended to compare the combined therapy (SRP and Chlorhexidine chip) with chlorhexidine chip alone in individuals with periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with three sites having a probing depth of 5-8mm were considered for the study. Sites were numbered 1, 2, 3 randomly. The clinical parameters assessed were the Plaque Index (PI), gingival index (GI), Bleeding on probing (BOP), Clinical attachment level (CAL) and Probing pocket depth (PPD). Following baseline evaluation, on two sites scaling and root planing (SRP) was performed, no treatment was carried out in the third site. Chlorhexidine chips were placed on one site with SRP and another without SRP. A periodontal pack was placed on the site to prevent dislodgement of the CHX chip. Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, one month and three months. Duration of the study was for three months. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: T-test and Analysis of variance (ANOVA) has been carried out in the present study. RESULTS: All three groups presented with an improvement in the clinical parameters compared to baseline. There was no statistically significant difference between the SRP and SRP + CHIP group in all parameters. There was a significant difference when these two groups were compared to the chip alone group. The mean reductions in PPD were 2.8mm (SRP group), 2.6 (SRP+CHIP group), 0.8 (chip alone group) The mean gain in CAL were 2.8mm (SRP group), 2.5 (SRP+CHIP group), 0.7 (chip alone group). Reduction in bleeding on probing were significant for the SRP and SRP +CHIP group but not for the chip alone group. CONCLUSION: The CHX chip did not provide any clinical benefit beyond that achieved with conventional scaling and rootplaning after a three month period.