| Literature DB >> 33960841 |
Wei Lei1,2,3, Haonan Tian1,2,3, Yinlan Xia1,2,3.
Abstract
Objective: This study investigated the association of the TaqI (rs731236 T>C) polymorphism in the VDR gene with dental caries.Entities:
Keywords: TaqI (rs731236 T>C); dental caries; meta-analysis; polymorphism
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33960841 PMCID: PMC8140352 DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2020.0263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers ISSN: 1945-0257
Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale Case Control Studies
| (1) Is the case definition adequate? | |
| (a) Yes, with independent validation[ | |
| (b) Yes, for example, record linkage or based on self-reports | |
| (c) No description | |
| (2) Representativeness of the cases | |
| (a) Consecutive or obviously representative series of cases[ | |
| Selection | (b) Potential for selection biases or not stated |
| (3) Selection of controls | |
| (a) Community controls[ | |
| (b) Hospital controls | |
| (c) No description | |
| (4) Definition of controls | |
| (a) No history of disease (endpoint)[ | |
| (b) No description of source | |
| (1) Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis | |
| Comparability | (a) Study controls for the most important factor (HWE in control group)[ |
| (b) Study controls for any additional factor (e.g., age, gender, and smoker ratios)[ | |
| (1) Ascertainment of exposure | |
| (a) Secure record[ | |
| (b) Structured interview where blind to case/control status[ | |
| (c) Interview not blinded to case/control status | |
| (d) Written self-report or medical record only | |
| Exposure | (e) No description |
| (2) Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls | |
| (a) Yes[ | |
| (b) No | |
| (3) Nonresponse rate | |
| (a) Same rate for both groups[ | |
| (b) Nonrespondents described | |
| (c) Rate different and no designation |
Indicates one point.
FIG. 1.PRISMA flowchart—selection of studies for meta-analysis.
Characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-analysis
| Study ID | Country | Ethnicity | Age | Genotyping method | TaqI(rs731236) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Control | TaqI | |||||
| Aribam ( | India | Asian | 6–12 years | PCR-RFLP | 60 | 60 | 0.37 |
| Qin ( | China | Asian | 3–5 years | TaqMan assays | 304 | 245 | 0.96 |
| Kong ( | China | Asian | 4–7 years | PCR-RFLP | 249 | 131 | 0.91 |
| Yu ( | China | Asian | 12 years | PCR-RFLP | 200 | 200 | 0.16 |
| Izakovicova Holla ( | Czech | Caucasian | 13–15 years | TaqMan assays | 235 | 153 | 0.11 |
| Cogulu ( | Turkey | Caucasian | 6–12 years | PCR-RFLP | 112 | 38 | 0.32 |
| Hu ( | China | Asian | 30–67 years | PCR-RFLP | 264 | 219 | 0.95 |
HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; RFLP, restriction fragment length polymorphism.
Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scores for the Studies Included in the Meta-analysis
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Exposure | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aribam ( | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | 6 |
| Qin ( | ☆☆☆☆ | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | 8 |
| Kong ( | ☆☆☆☆ | ☆ | ☆☆ | 7 |
| Yu ( | ☆☆ | ☆ | ☆☆ | 5 |
| Izakovicova Holla ( | ☆☆☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆ | 7 |
| Cogulu ( | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | 6 |
| Hu ( | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | 6 |
Results of Pooled Analysis of Each Polymorphism Based on Five Genetic Models
| TaqI(rs731236) | C vs. T | CT/CC vs. TT | CC vs. TT/CT | CC vs. TT | CT vs. TT | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | ||||||||||||
| Total ( | 7 | 1.24 (1.07–1.44) | 42% | 1.45 (0.96–2.19) | 0.08 | 54% | 1.38 (1.03–1.84) | 0% | 0.83 (0.29–2.40) | 0.74 | 75% | 1.41 (0.89–2.22) | 0.14 | 59% | ||
| Ethnicity | ||||||||||||||||
| Asian | 5 | 1.28 (1.06–1.54) | 60% | 1.67 (0.97–2.87) | 0.06 | 60% | 1.45 (0.93–2.26) | 0.10 | 0% | 1.38 (0.55–3.50) | 0.49 | 0% | 1.67 (0.96–2.90) | 0.07 | 60% | |
| Caucasian | 2 | 1.16 (0.90–1.50) | 0.26 | 0% | 1.05 (0.65–1.71) | 0.84 | 5% | 1.33 (0.91–1.95) | 0.14 | 0% | 0.62 (0.13–3.09) | 0.56 | 87% | 0.93 (0.56–1.56) | 0.79 | 29% |
| Dental caries in dentition | ||||||||||||||||
| Deciduous decay | 2 | 1.10 (0.87–1.38) | 0.42 | 0% | 1.39 (0.91–2.15) | 0.13 | 43% | 0.80 (0.05–12.89) | 0.88 | − | 1.28 (0.08–21.28) | 0.87 | − | 1.40 (0.91–2.15) | 0.13 | 44% |
| Mixed caries | 2 | 1.26 (0.87–1.82) | 0.23 | 0% | 1.37 (0.81–2.33) | 0.24 | 0% | 1.23 (0.66–2.29) | 0.51 | 0% | 1.44 (0.72–2.85) | 0.30 | 0% | 1.34 (0.75–2.40) | 0.32 | 0% |
| Permanent tooth caries | 3 | 1.40 (1.11–1.77) | 76% | 1.78 (0.41–7.73) | 0.44 | 89% | 1.44 (1.03–2.00) | 0% | 0.29 (0.16–0.53) | 0.0001 | − | 1.65 (0.33–8.35) | 0.54 | 90% | ||
p, p value for test of association.
I2 is a measure of heterogeneity expressed in %.
p < 0.05, indicating statistical significance of bold values.
95% CI, 95% confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
FIG. 2.Forest plot of association between TaqI polymorphism and dental caries risk based on ethnicity (C vs. T).
FIG. 3.Forest plot of association between TaqI polymorphism and dental caries risk based on dental caries in dentition (C vs. T).
FIG. 4.Sensitivity analysis for TaqI polymorphism and dental caries risk in an allelic model (C vs. T).
FIG. 5.Begg's funnel plot of the TaqI polymorphism and dental caries risk in an allelic model (C vs. T).
FIG. 6.Egger's test for TaqI polymorphism and dental caries risk in an allelic model (C vs. T).
The Results of Begg Test and Egger Test for Publication Bias
| Polymorphisms | Comparisons | Begg test | Egger test |
|---|---|---|---|
| TaqI (rs731236) | C vs. T | 0.368 | 0.208 |
| CC vs. TT/CT | 1.000 | 0.988 | |
| CT/CC vs. TT | 0.221 | 0.188 | |
| CC vs. TT | 1.000 | 0.396 | |
| CT vs. TT | 1.000 | 0.919 |