Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40861780›Full record

ArticleJournal of oral microbiology2025

Comparative pilot study of three commercial kits for bacterial DNA extraction from human subgingival biofilm samples collected with a single paper point.

Janine Wäge-Recchioni, Renke Perduns, Kirstin Vach, Angela Beckedorf, Joachim Volk, Nadine Schlueter, Ingmar Staufenbiel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oral microbiology, 2025. 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
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.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Janine Wäge-RecchioniDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7791-3930
Renke PerdunsDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1084-4584
Kirstin VachDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9278-2203
Angela BeckedorfDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Joachim VolkDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Nadine SchlueterDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6414-8950
Ingmar StaufenbielDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7155-8402

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: In periodontal research, subgingival biofilm samples are typically collected using sterile paper points and pooled for molecular analyses. Streamlining this process by using a single paper point for molecular analysis could simplify sample collection and allow additional paper points to be used for other investigations. This pilot study evaluated the performance of three commercial DNA extraction kits for analysing small sample volumes (<10 µL). Methods: Samples were collected from six participants, each contributing 18 paper points from both healthy and periodontitis-affected sites. Bacterial and human DNA yields were quantified using fluorometric measurements combined with qPCR, employing universal 16S primers for bacterial DNA and human-specific GAPDH primers. Results: Among the tested kits, the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit demonstrated the highest efficiency, yielding significantly more total dsDNA in samples from healthy sites compared to both other kits and in samples from periodontitis-affected sites compared to one kit. Bacterial DNA yields were also significantly higher with the DNeasy Kit compared to one of the other kits in both health conditions. Conclusion: These results suggest that one paper point is sufficient to extract DNA for subsequent bacterial analyses and that the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit appears to be the most efficient among the three tested kits.

Indexed as

DNA extractionpaper pointsperiodontal researchqPCRsubgingival biofilm

Identifiers

PMID40861780
PMCPMC12372513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.