Genetic disturbances during dental development influence variation of number and shape of the dentition. In this study, we tested if genetic variation in enamel formation genes is associated with molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), also taking into consideration caries experience. DNA samples from 163 cases with MIH and 82 unaffected controls from Turkey, and 71 cases with MIH and 89 unaffected controls from Brazil were studied. Eleven markers in five genes [ameloblastin (AMBN), amelogenin (AMELX), enamelin (ENAM), tuftelin (TUFT1), and tuftelin-interacting protein 11 (TFIP11)] were genotyped by the TaqMan method. Chi-square was used to compare allele and genotype frequencies between cases with MIH and controls. In the Brazilian data, distinct caries experience within the MIH group was also tested for association with genetic variation in enamel formation genes. The ENAM rs3796704 marker was associated with MIH in both populations (Brazil: p=0.03; OR=0.28; 95% C.I.=0.06–1.0; Turkey: p=1.22e–012; OR=17.36; 95% C.I.=5.98–56.78). Associations between TFIP11 (p=0.02), ENAM (p=0.00001), and AMELX (p=0.01) could be seen with caries independent of having MIH or genomic DNA copies of Streptococcus mutans detected by real time PCR in the Brazilian sample. Several genes involved in enamel formation appear to contribute to MIH.

There is evidence for a genetic component in caries susceptibility, and studies in humans have suggested that variation in enamel formation genes may contribute to caries. For the present study, we used DNA samples collected from 1,831 individuals from various population data sets. Single nucleotide polymorphism markers were genotyped in selected genes (ameloblastin, amelogenin, enamelin, tuftelin, and tuftelin interacting protein 11) that influence enamel formation. Allele and genotype frequencies were compared between groups with distinct caries experience. Associations with caries experience can be detected but they are not necessarily replicated in all population groups and the most expressive results was for a marker in AMELX (p = 0.0007). To help interpret these results, we evaluated if enamel microhardness changes under simulated cariogenic challenges are associated with genetic variations in these same genes. After creating an artificial caries lesion, associations could be seen between genetic variation in TUFT1 (p = 0.006) and TUIP11 (p = 0.0006) with enamel microhardness. Our results suggest that the influence of genetic variation of enamel formation genes may influence the dynamic interactions between the enamel surface and the oral cavity.

No abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate, by PCR-RFLP and Real-time PCR, the yield and quality of genomic DNA collected from buccal cells by mouthwash after different storage times at room temperature. Material and MethodsA group of volunteers was recruited to collect buccal cells using a mouthwash solution. The collected solution was divided into 3 tubes, one tube were used for immediate extraction and the remaining received ethanol and were kept at room temperature for 4 and 8 days followed by DNA extraction. The concentration, purity and integrity of the DNA were determined using spectrophotometry and electrophoresis. DNA quality differences among the three incubation times were also evaluated for genotyping EGF +61 A/G (rs 4444903) polymorphism by PCR-RFLP and for IRF6 polymorphism (rs 17015215) using Real-Time PCR. ResultsThere was no significant difference of DNA yield (p=0.75) and purity (p=0.86) among the three different incubation times. DNA obtained from different incubation times presented high-molecular weight. The PCR-RFLP and Real time PCR reactions were successfully performed for all DNA samples, even those extracted after 8 days of incubation. All samples genotyped by Real-Time PCR presented C allele for IRF6 gene polymorphism (homozygous: CC; heterozygous: CT) and the C allele was used as a reference for Ct values. The samples presented the same genotype for the different times in both techniques. ConclusionWe demonstrated that the method described herein is simple and low cost, and that DNA can be extracted and PCR amplified after storage in mouthwash solution at room temperature.