RESUMO
When a body is decomposed, hard tissues such as teeth may provide the only DNA source for human identification. There is currently no consensus as to the best DNA extraction method, and there is a lack of empirical data regarding tooth morphotype and condition that may impact DNA recovery. Therefore, this study sought to investigate which variables significantly improved DNA concentration, integrity and profiling success. A total of 52 human teeth were assessed, representing all tooth morphotypes from three deceased individuals. DNA was extracted using both the QIAamp® DNA Investigator Kit and the phenol-chloroform method. DNA concentration and degradation index were assessed using real time PCR, prior to conventional DNA profiling. Contrary to international guidelines promoting the use of molars, DNA profiling from molars was the least successful, with premolars, followed by canines, performing the best. The presence of fillings reduced the DNA quantity and quality obtained and may explain the poor performance of molars. DNA from the maxillae were significantly less degraded when the QIAamp® was used, although this did not influence DNA profiling success. A significant increase in DNA concentration, integrity and profiling success was observed in diseased teeth (periodontitis) compared to those without disease. This may be due to increased white blood cell presence at the site. There was no significant difference in DNA profiling success between the two DNA extraction methods. However, different teeth yielded failed DNA profiles for each extraction method, suggesting that repeated attempts, using alternative DNA extraction methods, is recommended. The recovery of additional DNA profiling information from degraded samples may help to ultimately reduce the burden of unidentified human remains.
