An evaluation of DNA yield, DNA quality and bite registration from a dental impression wafer

Mark A. Ellis, Fengyu Song, Edwin T. Parks, George J. Eckert, Jeffrey A. Dean, L. Jack Windsor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. The authors determined the amount and quality of the DNA captured by a bite impression wafer and analyzed any inaccuracies in the impression wafer. Methods. The authors made bite registrations for subjects aged 7 to 12 years by using a dental impression wafer (Tooth-prints, Kerr, Orange, Calif.), obtained an oral rinse sample, took cheek cells by using buccal swabs and made an alginate impression to pour a stone model. They extracted and quantified the DNA from the dental impression wafer, mouthwash and buccal swabs by using the Quant-iT PicoGreen (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.) assay and a real-time polymerase chain reaction (ET-PCR) assay. They compared the stone models and imprints from the wafer. Results. The average amounts of DNA determined by using Quant-iT PicoGreen from the buccaf swab, mouthwash and dental impression wafer samples were 113.61, 509.57 and 1.03 micrograms, respectively. The average amounts of DNA determined by using RT-PCR from the buccal swab, mouthwash and dental impression wafer samples were 11.5240, 22.2540 and 0.0279 pg, respectively. The bite registrations and stone models had an average of 14 percent of mismatches. Conclusion. The dental impression wafers captured DNA but not in high quantities. They did not produce an accurate representation of the dentition. Clinical Implications. The dental impression wafers captured enough DNA to permit amplification. The accuracy of the bite registration was not sufficient for identification purposes. Therefore, dental impression wafers may be useful only as a reservoir for DNA.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1234-1240
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American Dental Association
Volume138
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2007

Fingerprint

Jaw Relation Record
Tooth
Cheek
DNA
Mouthwashes
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Dentition
Bites and Stings
Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

Keywords

  • Bite registration
  • Buccal swab
  • Dental impression wafer
  • Mouthwash
  • Real-time polymerase chain reaction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

An evaluation of DNA yield, DNA quality and bite registration from a dental impression wafer. / Ellis, Mark A.; Song, Fengyu; Parks, Edwin T.; Eckert, George J.; Dean, Jeffrey A.; Windsor, L. Jack.

In: Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 138, No. 9, 09.2007, p. 1234-1240.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ellis, Mark A. ; Song, Fengyu ; Parks, Edwin T. ; Eckert, George J. ; Dean, Jeffrey A. ; Windsor, L. Jack. / An evaluation of DNA yield, DNA quality and bite registration from a dental impression wafer. In: Journal of the American Dental Association. 2007 ; Vol. 138, No. 9. pp. 1234-1240.
@article{8bd0cc1db861434e99db0f5691392155,
title = "An evaluation of DNA yield, DNA quality and bite registration from a dental impression wafer",
abstract = "Background. The authors determined the amount and quality of the DNA captured by a bite impression wafer and analyzed any inaccuracies in the impression wafer. Methods. The authors made bite registrations for subjects aged 7 to 12 years by using a dental impression wafer (Tooth-prints, Kerr, Orange, Calif.), obtained an oral rinse sample, took cheek cells by using buccal swabs and made an alginate impression to pour a stone model. They extracted and quantified the DNA from the dental impression wafer, mouthwash and buccal swabs by using the Quant-iT PicoGreen (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.) assay and a real-time polymerase chain reaction (ET-PCR) assay. They compared the stone models and imprints from the wafer. Results. The average amounts of DNA determined by using Quant-iT PicoGreen from the buccaf swab, mouthwash and dental impression wafer samples were 113.61, 509.57 and 1.03 micrograms, respectively. The average amounts of DNA determined by using RT-PCR from the buccal swab, mouthwash and dental impression wafer samples were 11.5240, 22.2540 and 0.0279 pg, respectively. The bite registrations and stone models had an average of 14 percent of mismatches. Conclusion. The dental impression wafers captured DNA but not in high quantities. They did not produce an accurate representation of the dentition. Clinical Implications. The dental impression wafers captured enough DNA to permit amplification. The accuracy of the bite registration was not sufficient for identification purposes. Therefore, dental impression wafers may be useful only as a reservoir for DNA.",
keywords = "Bite registration, Buccal swab, Dental impression wafer, Mouthwash, Real-time polymerase chain reaction",
author = "Ellis, {Mark A.} and Fengyu Song and Parks, {Edwin T.} and Eckert, {George J.} and Dean, {Jeffrey A.} and Windsor, {L. Jack}",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
doi = "10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0349",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "138",
pages = "1234--1240",
journal = "Journal of the American Dental Association",
issn = "0002-8177",
publisher = "American Dental Association",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An evaluation of DNA yield, DNA quality and bite registration from a dental impression wafer

AU - Ellis, Mark A.

AU - Song, Fengyu

AU - Parks, Edwin T.

AU - Eckert, George J.

AU - Dean, Jeffrey A.

AU - Windsor, L. Jack

PY - 2007/9

Y1 - 2007/9

N2 - Background. The authors determined the amount and quality of the DNA captured by a bite impression wafer and analyzed any inaccuracies in the impression wafer. Methods. The authors made bite registrations for subjects aged 7 to 12 years by using a dental impression wafer (Tooth-prints, Kerr, Orange, Calif.), obtained an oral rinse sample, took cheek cells by using buccal swabs and made an alginate impression to pour a stone model. They extracted and quantified the DNA from the dental impression wafer, mouthwash and buccal swabs by using the Quant-iT PicoGreen (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.) assay and a real-time polymerase chain reaction (ET-PCR) assay. They compared the stone models and imprints from the wafer. Results. The average amounts of DNA determined by using Quant-iT PicoGreen from the buccaf swab, mouthwash and dental impression wafer samples were 113.61, 509.57 and 1.03 micrograms, respectively. The average amounts of DNA determined by using RT-PCR from the buccal swab, mouthwash and dental impression wafer samples were 11.5240, 22.2540 and 0.0279 pg, respectively. The bite registrations and stone models had an average of 14 percent of mismatches. Conclusion. The dental impression wafers captured DNA but not in high quantities. They did not produce an accurate representation of the dentition. Clinical Implications. The dental impression wafers captured enough DNA to permit amplification. The accuracy of the bite registration was not sufficient for identification purposes. Therefore, dental impression wafers may be useful only as a reservoir for DNA.

AB - Background. The authors determined the amount and quality of the DNA captured by a bite impression wafer and analyzed any inaccuracies in the impression wafer. Methods. The authors made bite registrations for subjects aged 7 to 12 years by using a dental impression wafer (Tooth-prints, Kerr, Orange, Calif.), obtained an oral rinse sample, took cheek cells by using buccal swabs and made an alginate impression to pour a stone model. They extracted and quantified the DNA from the dental impression wafer, mouthwash and buccal swabs by using the Quant-iT PicoGreen (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.) assay and a real-time polymerase chain reaction (ET-PCR) assay. They compared the stone models and imprints from the wafer. Results. The average amounts of DNA determined by using Quant-iT PicoGreen from the buccaf swab, mouthwash and dental impression wafer samples were 113.61, 509.57 and 1.03 micrograms, respectively. The average amounts of DNA determined by using RT-PCR from the buccal swab, mouthwash and dental impression wafer samples were 11.5240, 22.2540 and 0.0279 pg, respectively. The bite registrations and stone models had an average of 14 percent of mismatches. Conclusion. The dental impression wafers captured DNA but not in high quantities. They did not produce an accurate representation of the dentition. Clinical Implications. The dental impression wafers captured enough DNA to permit amplification. The accuracy of the bite registration was not sufficient for identification purposes. Therefore, dental impression wafers may be useful only as a reservoir for DNA.

KW - Bite registration

KW - Buccal swab

KW - Dental impression wafer

KW - Mouthwash

KW - Real-time polymerase chain reaction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34748889700&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34748889700&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0349

DO - 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0349

M3 - Article

C2 - 17785390

AN - SCOPUS:34748889700

VL - 138

SP - 1234

EP - 1240

JO - Journal of the American Dental Association

JF - Journal of the American Dental Association

SN - 0002-8177

IS - 9

ER -