Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33507165›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology2020

Comparative forensic analysis of reverse root canal filing and conventional method for DNA isolation from extracted teeth under different environmental conditions: A prospective study.

A A Khan, A B Urs, J Augustine, H Singh

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 83% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A A KhanDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India.
A B UrsDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India.
J AugustineDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India.
H SinghDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The grinding of a whole tooth specimen has been considered the conventional method to extract genomic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in forensic science. However, we have tried the less destructive reverse root canal filing (RRCF) method without disturbing the morphology of the tooth to achieve competent amplifiable DNA. A total of 27 pairs of bilateral intact extracted teeth from the same subject were used in three different simulated environmental conditions for the respective RRCF and conventional methods: (a) soil burial for six months, (b) incineration at 200º C for four minutes, and (c) immersion in water for two months. Qualitative agarose gel electrophoresis assessment and downstream amplification were performed. The results showed significantly higher mean DNA concentration for the RRCF method in all three environmental conditions (p value = 0.008) in comparison to the conventional method. However, comparable qualitative results were found in both methods for the mean DNA concentration for incinerated (159.49 ng/ml), soil (119.52 ng/ml), and water (108.60 ng/ml) samples. It was concluded that the RRCF method is better quantitively (ng/ml) and comparable in terms of quality with respect to the conventional method, with the added advantage of preservation of the tooth morphology.

Indexed as

Dental Pulp CavityToothDNAFilingHumansProspective StudiesDNA

Identifiers

PMID33507165
PMCPMC8565656
OpenAlexW3120362059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.