Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 30;38(3):35-41.

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  1 , A B Urs  1 , J Augustine  1 , H Singh  1
Affiliations

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 et al. J Forensic Odontostomatol. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 2
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Kumar V, Shanbhag L. Teeth as a source of DNA to identify mass disaster victims. Int J Forensic Odontol. 2017;2:43–4. 10.4103/2542-5013.205250 - DOI
    1. Gaytmenn R, Sweet D. Quantification of forensic DNA from various regions of human teeth. J Forensic Sci. 2003;48(3):622–25. 10.1520/JFS2002372 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shamim T. Deoxyribonucleic acid profiling in forensic dental identification. Indian J Hum Genet. 2013;19:513. 10.4103/0971-6866.124387 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rohland N, Hofreiter M. Ancient DNA extraction from bones and teeth. Nat Protoc. 2007;2:1756–62. 10.1038/nprot.2007.247 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Presecki Z, Brkic H, Primorac D, Drmic I. Methods of preparing the tooth for DNA isolation. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2000;34(1):15–20.