International journal of dentistry · 2026
Is There Evidence Supporting the use of Dermatoglyphics as an Auxiliary Diagnostic Method for Periodontitis? A Scoping Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Melo Sara Maria do Amaral, do Amaral Maria Teresa Andrade, Santana Maria Luiza Lima, Nogueira Túlio Eduardo, Roriz Virgílio Moreira
Аннотация
AIMS: To identify and synthesize the scientific evidence regarding the use of dermatoglyphics as an auxiliary method in the diagnosis of periodontitis.
METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and reported following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Multiple electronic databases and sources of gray literature were searched without language or time restrictions. Studies evaluating individuals with periodontitis using dermatoglyphics as a complementary diagnostic approach were included. Study selection, data extraction, and analysis were independently performed by two reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tools for analytical cross-sectional studies, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.
RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were included, comprising 21 cross-sectional studies and three case-control studies. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in both periodontal diagnostic criteria and fingerprint collection methods. None of the included studies reported diagnostic accuracy measures for dermatoglyphic patterns (DPs) in comparison with a clinical periodontal diagnosis. A predominance of the ulnar loop fingerprint pattern was frequently reported among individuals with periodontitis, although some studies also described a higher prevalence of whorl patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the results may suggest an association between certain DPs and the presence of periodontitis, the current evidence is insufficient to support its clinical application. There is a clear need for well-designed multicenter studies with methodological rigor and standardized diagnostic criteria.
METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and reported following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Multiple electronic databases and sources of gray literature were searched without language or time restrictions. Studies evaluating individuals with periodontitis using dermatoglyphics as a complementary diagnostic approach were included. Study selection, data extraction, and analysis were independently performed by two reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tools for analytical cross-sectional studies, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.
RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were included, comprising 21 cross-sectional studies and three case-control studies. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in both periodontal diagnostic criteria and fingerprint collection methods. None of the included studies reported diagnostic accuracy measures for dermatoglyphic patterns (DPs) in comparison with a clinical periodontal diagnosis. A predominance of the ulnar loop fingerprint pattern was frequently reported among individuals with periodontitis, although some studies also described a higher prevalence of whorl patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the results may suggest an association between certain DPs and the presence of periodontitis, the current evidence is insufficient to support its clinical application. There is a clear need for well-designed multicenter studies with methodological rigor and standardized diagnostic criteria.