br Conclusion br Conflict of interest br
Conflict of interest
Acknowledgements Piyamas Kanokwongnuwut was supported by the Development and Promotion of Science and Technology Talent Project (DPST), Royal Thai Government Scholarship. Funding for the work was provided by the Attorney General’s Department of South Australia via Forensic Science South Australia.
Since Schena and coworkers developed microarray technology to detect gene expression in 1995 , DNA microarray hybridization has been an important and popular tool for broad applications in biomedical research. Oligonucleotide or complementary DNA (cDNA) probes are immobilized on solid phases such as modified glass or membrane surface by different technologies . Major applications of DNA chips include gene expression, pathogen detection, genotyping, resequencing, drug discovery , pharmacogenomic research , cancer diagnostics and protein–DNA interactions .
Introduction Amalgam fillings have been replaced by resin composites over the years, mainly for aesthetics reasons . Composite resin fillings have advantages such as better aesthetics; adhesive properties, resulting in reduced preparation size  and reinforcement of the remaining dental structure . Dentists manage different shades, compositions and brands of resin composites to build the perfect restorations and to mimic the original teeth characteristics. Improvements in resin composite composition have led to higher quality of marginal brincidofovir and mimicking of tooth natural properties, such as translucency , fluorescence [5,6] and opalescence . All these advances have hampered the work of forensic experts in cases of identifying cadavers. In dental practice, the determination of the margins of restorations or the presence of remnants of a filling has also become a challenge . In the forensic field, identification based on oral datasets are most frequently performed comparing antemortem and postmortem dental records. Normally, antemortem records include radiographs, dental charts and dental casts . When antemortem data is not available, the postmortem profile must be filled with all possible characteristics to enable the identification at a later point . Aesthetic materials have made it difficult to fill charts as precisely as possible. The identification of the dead in an unfamiliar location, e.g. a temporary morgue inside a tent or a warehouse, with limited access to water and electricity, may further compromise the visual inspection of the arch . Autopsy conditions can also be difficult due to the presence of putrid material, blood, stomach products and difficulty to access the oral cavity caused by rigor mortis. Even in a dental practice under optimal conditions, a perfect polished and tooth-coloured restoration may be overlooked . Staining is the artificial coloration of a material to facilitate examination, and it requires a colour organic molecule, called dye . A reduced number of manuscripts has described staining techniques for forensic purposes , and none has used different types of composites or has tested more than one dye. The aim of this study was to produce an easy and cheap protocol using conventional histology dyes, to assist and to improve the detection of aesthetic resin fillings in forensic and in clinical settings.
Material and methods
Results Different restorative products used in this study did not influence the result (p > 0.05). Both Gphos and Ghydro protocols improved the identification of dental fillings compared to Gcontrol (p < 0.05). Table 2 illustrates the mean score according to the protocol used and the type of filling compared to the control group. There was no statistical difference between Gphos and Ghydro for all comparisons (p > 0.05). Gphos enabled the enamel surfaces to be stained leaving the restoration without pigmentation, while Ghydro led to composite staining, but not the enamel. In Gcontrol, all dyes stained both enamel and restoration, without distinction between them. Statistical visual improvement was observed between dyes having mean score +++ compared with those receiving score + (p < 0.05). Fig. 1, Fig. 2 illustrates differences between treatments and scores.