Association of genetic variants in enamel-formation genes with dental caries: A meta- and gene-cluster analysis
===============================================================================================================

* Xueyan Li
* Di Liu
* Yang Sun
* Jingyun Yang
* Youcheng Yu

## Abstract

Previous studies have reported the association between multiple genetic variants in enamel formation-related genes and the risk of dental caries with inconsistent results. We performed a systematic literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, HuGE and Google Scholar databases for studies published before March 21, 2020 and conducted meta-, gene-based and gene-cluster analysis on the association between genetic variants in enamel-formation-related genes and the risk of dental caries. Our systematic literature search identified 21 relevant publications including a total of 24 studies for analysis. The genetic variant rs17878486 in *AMELX* was significantly associated with dental caries risk (OR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.02-1.93, *P*=0.037). We found no significant association between the risk of dental caries with rs12640848 in *ENAM* (OR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.88-1.52, *P*=0.310), rs1784418 in *MMP20* (OR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.76-1.49, *P*=0.702) and rs3796704 in *ENAM* (OR=1.06, 95% CI: 0.96-1.17, *P*=0.228). Gene-based analysis indicated that multiple genetic variants in *AMELX* showed joint association with the risk of dental caries (6 variants; *P*<10−5), so did genetic variants in *MMP13* (3 variants; *P*=0.004), *MMP2* (3 variants; *P*<10−5), *MMP20* (2 variants; *P*<10−5) and *MMP3* (2 variants; *P*<10−5). The gene-cluster analysis indicated a significant association between the genetic variants in this enamel-formation gene cluster and the risk of dental caries (*P*<10−5). The present meta-analysis revealed that genetic variant rs17878486 in *AMELX* were associated with dental caries, and multiple genetic variants in enamel-formation-related genes jointly contribute to the risk of dental caries, supporting the role of genetic variants in the enamel-formation genes in the etiology of dental caries.

Keywords
*   Enamel
*   dental caries
*   genetic variant
*   meta-analysis

## Introduction

Dental caries is one of the most common oral diseases, with an age-standardized global prevalence of untreated dentine carious lesions being around 9% in the primary dentition and around 35% in the permanent dentition during the last three decades1. Dental caries is a major public health concern, leading to tooth pain or loss and many other concomitants such as trouble in learning, eating or sleeping2. Dental caries remains to be very common despite the adoption of various preventive measures.

Dental caries results from continued localized demineralization of the dental enamel and dentine. It is a chronic disease with a multi-factorial etiology, involving the complex interactions between genetic, environmental and behavioral factors such as fluoride exposure, diet and oral hygiene3-5. Although previous studies have been successful in revealing the factors associated with the risk of dental caries6-8, more studies are needed to validate these findings, identify additional factors, and elucidate their exact roles in the etiology of dental caries.

The quality and quantity of enamel plays a direct role in the susceptibility to dental caries. Enamel formation related genes, such as *AMBN, AMELX, TUFT1, KLK4* and *ENAM*, represent a cluster of genes that are involved in the pathway of odontogenesis of dentin-containing teeth3, 9. Previous studies examined the association of genetic variants in this gene cluster with dental caries susceptibility, with inconsistent results10-12. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to examine the association between multiple genetic variants in this gene cluster and the risk of dental caries. Considering that the effect of individual genetic variant may be small, we also performed a gene-based and gene-cluster analysis to explore the joint association of multiple genetic variants in this gene cluster with the risk of dental caries.

## Materials and Methods

Ethical approval and informed consent statements are not required due to the systematic review and meta-analytic nature of this study.

### Eligibility Criteria

We adopted the following inclusion criteria to determine study eligibility: 1) studies on human subjects; 2) the studies has case and control group, with the case group including subjects who had caries or high caries and the control group being care-free or having low/very low caries; and 3) the studies reported data on genetic variants in enamel formation genes for subjects in both the case group and the control group. We chose the studies with a larger sample size if multiple studies used overlapping data.

Two authors (XL and JY) performed an extensive literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, HuGE and Google Scholar databases for studies published before March 21, 2020. The keywords used in the literature search are provided in the online supplementary file.

We retrieved all potentially relevant publications to evaluate study eligibility. We manually searched the references in all identified studies for research that might have been missed during the literature search. We also relied on Google Scholar’s ‘cited by’ tool to search for potential publications that cited the studies identified in the literature search. The two authors performed the literature search independently. The search was limited to studies published in English. Any disagreement was resolved by group discussion (XL, SY and JY).

### Data Extraction

Two authors (DL and JY) independently extracted the following data from the eligible studies according to a pre-specified protocol for data extraction: name of the first author, year of publication, characteristics of the study participants, including sample size, mean age, distribution of gender, race/country of origin of the participants, screening method for dental caries, and genotype data for participants in the case and the control group. Any discrepancies were resolved in a group meeting. The quality of the included studies was assessed by two authors (DL and JY) independently using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS)13. Extracted data were entered into a computerised spreadsheet for analysis.

### Data Analysis

We used odds ratios (ORs) as a measure of the association between genetic variants in enamel-formation genes and the risk of dental caries. In all the meta-analyses, we used random-effects models to calculate the ORs and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The analyses were performed using different genetic models, including additive, allelic, dominant, recessive and co-dominant genetic models. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using I2, and publication bias was visually checked by a contour-enhanced funnel plot and evaluated by Egger’s test. We performed meta-analysis for a single genetic variant when there were data from multiple studies for that genetic variant. However, we only reported meta-analysis results for genetic variants that had data from at least four studies. Meta-analysis results for genetic variants that had data from less than four studies were used only in the gene-based and gene-cluster analysis as described in detail below.

### Gene-based and Gene-cluster Analysis

We conducted gene-based analyses to assess the overall association of multiple genetic variants in each enamel-formation gene with the risk of dental caries risk. We followed the methods in Dr. Li et al. 202014. Specifically, we used the P-values of all genetic variants within that gene obtained from our meta-analyses or from published literature when no meta-analysis could be done. Four different P-value combination methods were utilized—the Fisher’s method15, the Simes method16, the modified inverse normal method17 and the modified truncated product method (TPM)18, 19. For the modified TPM, we calculated unweighted and weighted TPM, where the former did not consider the difference in sample sizes whereas the latter employs the sample sizes as its weight, thereby allowing studies with larger sample sizes to play a larger role in the calculation18. A detailed description of the four methods has been given elsewhere19. To estimate the P-value for the modified TPM, we ran 100,000 simulations to account for the correlation between the P-values. Gene-cluster analysis followed a similar approach as gene-based analyses.

### Sensitivity/Additional Analysis

We examined the association by including only the studies in which the genetic data in the control group satisfied Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE). We also repeated the meta-analyses by excluding studies of low quality (NOS < six stars). And finally, we examined the association through meta-analysis by including only the studies that used data from children.

All statistical analyses were performed using R ([https://www.r-project.org](https://www.r-project.org)). A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. This study was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines20.

## Results

### Study Selection and Characteristics

**Figure 1** shows the selection of eligible studies included in our meta-analyses. We identified 132 potential publications through our initial search. After screening the abstracts, 95 publications were excluded because they were not about human subjects, were not in English, were reviews/meta-analysis or were irrelevant. This left 37 studies that were retrieved for more detailed evaluation. We excluded an additional 16 studies because they were reviews or meta-analyses, the outcomes did not include dental caries. or because there were insufficient data. This resulted in 21 publications including a total of 24 studies that met the eligibility criteria and were included in our analyses5, 10-12, 21-38. In summary, the meta-analyses of rs12640848 in *ENAM* included seven studies with a total of 1,256 subjects in the case group and 710 subjects in the control group12, 25, 27, 33, 34, 37; the meta-analyses of rs1784418 in *MMP20* included five studies with a total of 699 subjects in the case group and 817 subjects in the control group10, 24, 26, 30, 36; the meta-analyses of rs17878486 in *AMELX* included four studies with a total of 249 subjects in the case group and 193 subjects in the control group10, 12, 22, 25; and the meta-analyses of rs3796704 in *ENAM* included four studies with a total of 574 subjects in the case group and 533 subjects in the control group12, 25, 32, 34. Data for other genetic variants came from fewer studies.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/22/2020.09.19.20198044/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/22/2020.09.19.20198044/F1)

Figure 1. 
Flow diagram of the process of selecting studies included in the meta-analyses. Note: Please see the Methods section for additional details.

All included publications were published since 2008, with a sample size ranging from 71 to 1,005. The basic characteristics of the included studies are presented in **Table 1**. The majority of the included studies were of good quality, except four studies which had NOS scores of 4 or 55, 22, 37, 38.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/22/2020.09.19.20198044/T1)

Table 1. Basic characteristics of all the studies included in the analyses.

### Assessment of Publication Bias

We did not find evidence of a significant publication bias for the meta-analysis of rs12640848 in *ENAM* (*P*=0.053), rs1784418 in *MMP20* (*P*=0.238), rs17878486 in *AMELX* (P=0.521) and rs3796704 in *ENAM* (*P*=0.194; **Figure 2**). Assessment of publication bias for the meta-analysis of other genetic variants is not very meaningful due to the limited number of studies included in the corresponding meta-analysis.

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/22/2020.09.19.20198044/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/22/2020.09.19.20198044/F2)

Figure 2. 
Contour-enhanced funnel plots for meta-analyses of the association with dental caries assuming an additive model.

### Association with the Risk of Dental Caries

For simplicity, we mainly reported results assuming an additive model for the meta-analyses. Complete results for meta-analyses and association analyses of individual genetic variant assuming different genetic models were presented in **Supplementary Table 1-5**. The genetic variant rs17878486 in *AMELX* was significantly associated with dental caries risk (OR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.02-1.93, *P*=0.037; **Table 2**). We found that rs12640848 in *ENAM*, the genetic variant that has largest number of studies in our meta-analysis, was not significantly associated with the risk of dental caries (OR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.88-1.52, *P*=0.310). Meta-analysis also revealed no significant association of rs1784418 (OR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.76-1.49, *P*=0.702) in *MMP20* and rs3796704 (OR=1.06, 95% CI: 0.96-1.17, *P*=0.228) in *ENAM* with the risk of dental caries. There was significant heterogeneity in the all the meta-analyses except the meta-analysis of rs3796704 (P=0.091; **Figure 3**). We did not find significant association of the four genetic variants with the risk of dental caries assuming other genetic models (**Supplementary Table 2-5)**.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/22/2020.09.19.20198044/T2)

Table 2. Meta-analysis of the association of genetic variants in enamel-formation genes with the risk of dental caries.*

![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/09/22/2020.09.19.20198044/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/22/2020.09.19.20198044/F3)

Figure 3. 
Forest plots for meta-analysis of the association with dental caries assuming an additive model. Each study is represented by a square whose area is proportional to the weight of the study. The overall effect from meta-analysis is represented by a diamond whose width represents the 95% CI for the estimated OR.

A) Forest plot for meta-analysis of rs12640848; B) Forest plot for meta-analysis of rs1784418; C) Forest plot for meta-analysis of rs17878486; and D) Forest plot for meta-analysis of rs3796704 OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Meta-analyses of other genetic variants that included fewer studies revealed no significant association with the risk of dental caries. However, multiple genetic variants in *ENAM, TUFT1, MMP2, MMP3, MMP8, MMP13, MMP20* and *AMELX* showed significant association with the risk of dental caries in individual studies (**Supplementary Table 1**).

### Gene-based and Gene-cluster Analysis

Gene-based analysis results are presented in Table 3. We found that multiple genetic variants in *AMELX* showed joint association with the risk of dental caries (6 variants; all Ps<2×10−4), so did genetic variants in *MMP13* (3 variants; all Ps≤0.01), *MMP2* (3 variants; all Ps<10−5), *MMP20* (2 variants; all Ps<10−5) and *MMP3* (2 variants; all Ps<10− 5). The gene-cluster analysis indicated a significant association between the genetic variants in this enamel-formation cluster and the risk of dental caries (all Ps<10−5; **Table 4**).

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/22/2020.09.19.20198044/T3)

Table 3. Gene-based analysis of the association of genetic variants in enamel-formation genes with the risk of dental caries.

View this table:
[Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/22/2020.09.19.20198044/T4)

Table 4. Gene-cluster analysis of the association of genetic variants in the enamel-formation genes with the risk of dental caries.

The x-axis is the odds ratio, and the y-axis is the standard error of the estimated effect on the risk of dental caries. The vertical line in the figure represents the overall estimated odds ratio. The two diagonal lines represent the pseudo 95% confidence limits of the effect estimate.

Levels of statistical significance of the individual studies are indicated by the shaded regions: the white region corresponds to p-values greater than .05, the dark blue-shaded region corresponds to *P*-values between .025 and .05, the blue-shaded region corresponds to *P*-values between .01 and .025, and the light blue-shaded region corresponds to *P*-values below .01.

A) Funnel plot for meta-analysis of rs12640848; B) Funnel plot for meta-analysis of rs1784418;

C) Funnel plot for meta-analysis of rs17878486; and D) Funnel plot for meta-analysis of rs3796704

### Sensitivity Analysis

The association of rs17878486 in *AMELX* remained to be significant when we excluded studies in which genetic data in the control group violated HWE (OR=1.59, 95% CI: 1.15-2.20, *P*=0.006; **Supplementary Table 6**). The association disappeared after excluding studies of low quality and after excluding studies that used adult data (**Supplementary Table 7-8)**. It should be noted that the total sample sizes for these sensitivity analyses were very limited. We did not find a significant association of the other three genetic variants with the risk of dental caries in all the sensitivity analyses (**Supplementary Table 6-8)**.

## Discussions

In this manuscript, we performed a systematic literature search and conducted meta-, gene-based and gene-cluster analysis to examine the association of multiple genetic variants in the enamel formation genes with the risk of dental caries. We found that rs17878486 in *AMELX* was significantly associated with the risk of dental caries, but no significant association of other genetic variants in the meta-analyses including at least four studies. However, gene-based analysis and gene-cluster analysis indicated that genetic variants in enamel-formation-related genes were jointly associated with the risk of dental caries. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis on some of the genetic variants in the enamel-formation genes, and the first gene-based and gene-cluster analysis on the joint association of genetic variants in this gene cluster with the risk of dental caries.

*AMELX* is a gene located in both the X and Y chromosomes39 and encodes a set of isoforms of amelogenin, a major structural protein of the enamel organic matrix protein. Previous research using genetically engineered mice indicated *AMELX* was crucial for proper enamel formation40. Our meta-analysis of four studies including a total of 249 subjects with caries and 193 subjects without caries indicated that the genetic variant rs17878486 in *AMELX* was significantly associated with the risk of dental caries assuming an additive model; however, it showed no significant association under other genetic models (**Supplementary Table 2-5**). Moreover, no other genetic variants showed significant association except rs5933871 (**Supplementary Table 1**). Given the important role of *AMELX* in amelogenesis, future research is greatly needed to validate the relationship of the reported genetic variants and explore other genetic variants in this gene that may be associated with the risk of dental caries.

The gene *ENAM* is located on chromosome 4q 13.3 and has 10 exons. It encodes enamelin protein which is critical for the formation and elongation of enamel crystallites41. Meta-analysis for the genetic variant rs12640848 in *ENAM* has the largest number of included studies. Previous research suggested that this polymorphism was associated with the risk of dental caries42, 43. In our meta-analysis assuming an additive model, of the six publications including a total of seven studies, only one study including 541 caries-affected children and 177 caries-free children aged 13-15 years old in Czech indicated a significant positive association of the G allele with an increased risk of dental caries (OR=2.38, 95% CI: 2.12-2.67, *P*<0.0001)33. However, we did notice that several included studies indicated a significant association of this variant under other genetic models27, 34, although the overall meta-analysis results were still not significant (data not shown). Most of the other studied genetic variants in this gene were not associated with the risk of dental caries except one SNP rs3806804 which showed marginal association (OR=0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-1.00; *P*=0.049; **Supplementary Table 1**). More studies are needed to elucidate the role of rs12640848 and other genetic variants in *ENAM* in the formation of dental caries.

Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) refer to a large family of zinc-dependent endoproteinases which are fundamental in tooth formation and mineralization of dental tissue44. More than 25 vertebrate MMPs have been identified, and 24 of them are present in humans45. Genetic variants in many of the MMP genes, such as *MMP2, MMP3, MMP13* and *MMP20*, have been reported to be associated with the risk of dental caries23, 24, 28. Meta-analysis of rs1784418 in *MMP20* including a total of five studies showed no significant association of this genetic variant with the risk of dental caries (**Table 1**). However, many other genetic variants in this gene cluster were significantly associated with the risk of dental caries (**Supplementary Table 1**). These results should be interpreted with caution because they were based on data from single studies with limited sample sizes. Gene-based analysis indicated that genetic variants within *MMP2, MMP3, MMP8, MMP13* and *MMP20* jointly associated with the risk of dental caries, further supporting the involvement of genetic variants in these genes in influencing the risk of dental caries. Future studies are warranted to reveal the function of these genetic variants in the etiology of dental caries.

We observed significant heterogeneities in all of the meta-analyses except the meta-analysis for rs3796704 in *ENAM* (P=0.091; **Table 2**). The heterogeneity disappeared in some sensitivity analyses by removing the studies that violated HWE in the control group, the studies of low quality and the studies that used adult data, indicating that HWE, study quality which included several items such as selection of the study subjects, and age of study participants might be potential sources of heterogeneity. However, because of the limited availability of data from each individual study, the exact source of the heterogeneity could not track, and meta-regression is also not feasible and/or meaningful, again due to the limited number of studies.

For the gene-based and gene-cluster analyses, we adopted the same approach as in our previous work which revealed that, despite weak evidence of individual genetic variants in actotransferrin (*LTF*), multiple genetic variants in *LTF* showed joint contribution to the risk of dental caries14. Both of our studies indicated that although the effect of a single genetic variant may be small or insignificant, with proper methods we could still capture the joint contribution of multiple genetic variants. However, our previous study was limited to the exploration of genetic variants within a single gene, whereas in the present study, we examined multiple genetic variants in multiple genes. As a result, we were able to examine a larger number of genetic variants from a larger number of publications, and findings from our gene-based and gene-cluster analysis represented the joint effects from a larger of genetic variants.

Our study has some limitations. Despite efforts in the systematic literature search, the sample sizes for many meta-analyses were limited. As a result, our findings need to be validated by future studies with larger sample sizes. The association of the risk of dental caries with many genetic variants was based on individual studies, which may be subject to biases due to a number of factors such as small sample size and the genetic background of the study participants. The exact relationship of these genetic variants with the risk of dental caries warrant further research. We did not perform analysis by type of dentition because of limited information and limited number of studies. Finally, due to a lack of data for individual subjects, out meta-analyses did not control for important factors that may affect the risk of dental caries. The estimated effect of the reported genetic variants on the risk of dental caries could be greatly confounded by such factors, a limitation of any meta-analysis that uses unadjusted analysis. Future research on the relationship between enamel-formation-related genes and the risk of dental caries should take into account the important confounding factors.

## Conclusions

The present meta-analysis revealed that genetic variant rs17878486 in *AMELX* was associated with dental caries, and multiple genetic variants in enamel-formation-related genes jointly contribute to the risk of dental caries. Future studies with large sample sizes that control for important confounding factors, such as diet, microbial and host characteristics, are needed to validate our findings and to explore additional genetic loci in this gene cluster that might also affect the risk of dental caries.

### Data Availability

No additional data are available.

## Data Availability

No additional data are available.

## Conflict of Interest

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

## Funding Statement

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81771493). Dr. Jingyun Yang’s research was also supported by NIH/NIA grant R01AG036042 and the Illinois Department of Public Health. Di Liu’s research was supported by China Scholarship Council (CSC 201908110339). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

## Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Table 1-5 provided results for the association of genetic variants in the enamel-formation genes with the risk of dental caries assuming different genetic models.

Supplementary Table 6-8 provided results for sensitivity/subgroup analysis in meta-analyzing four genetic variants in the enamel-formation genes in association with the risk of dental caries.

*   Received September 19, 2020.
*   Revision received September 19, 2020.
*   Accepted September 22, 2020.


*   © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## References

1.  1.Frencken JE, Sharma P, Stenhouse L, Green D, Laverty D, Dietrich T. Global epidemiology of dental caries and severe periodontitis - a comprehensive review. J Clin Periodontol 2017;44 Suppl 18: S94–S105.
    
    

2.  2.Gilchrist F, Marshman Z, Deery C, Rodd HD. The impact of dental caries on children and young people: what they have to say? Int J Paediatr Dent 2015;25(5): 327–38.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/ipd.12186&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26153526&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

3.  3.Shungin D, Haworth S, Divaris K, et al. Genome-wide analysis of dental caries and periodontitis combining clinical and self-reported data. Nat Commun 2019;10(1):p 2773.
    
    

4.  4.Harris R, Nicoll AD, Adair PM, Pine CM. Risk factors for dental caries in young children: a systematic review of the literature. Community Dent Health 2004;21(1 Suppl): 71–85.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15072476&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

5.  5.Yildiz G, Ermis RB, Calapoglu NS, Celik EU, Turel GY. Gene-environment Interactions in the Etiology of Dental Caries. J Dent Res 2016;95(1):74–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0022034515605281&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26377569&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

6.  6.Costa SM, Martins CC, Bonfim Mde L, et al. A systematic review of socioeconomic indicators and dental caries in adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2012;9(10):3540–74.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/ijerph9103540&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23202762&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

7.  7.Piekoszewska-Zietek P, Turska-Szybka A, Olczak-Kowalczyk D. Single Nucleotide Polymorphism in the Aetiology of Caries: Systematic Literature Review. Caries Res 2017;51(4):425–35.
    
    

8.  8.Kumar S, Tadakamadla J, Kroon J, Johnson NW. Impact of parent-related factors on dental caries in the permanent dentition of 6-12-year-old children: A systematic review. J Dent 2016;46:1–11.
    
    

9.  9.Pang L, Zhi Q, Zhuang P, Yu L, Tao Y, Lin H. Variation in Enamel Formation Genes Influences Enamel Demineralization In Vitro in a Streptococcus mutans Biofilm Model. Front Physiol 2017;8:851.
    
    

10. 10.Gerreth K, Zaorska K, Zabel M, Borysewicz-Lewicka M, Nowicki M. Chosen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of enamel formation genes and dental caries in a population of Polish children. Adv Clin Exp Med 2017;26(6):899–905.
    
    

11. 11.Olszowski T, Adler G, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Safranow K, Kaczmarczyk M. MBL2, MASP2, AMELX, and ENAM gene polymorphisms and dental caries in Polish children. Oral Dis 2012;18(4):389–95.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1601-0825.2011.01887.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22221294&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

12. 12.Ergoz N, Seymen F, Gencay K, et al. Genetic variation in Ameloblastin is associated with caries in asthmatic children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2014;15(3):211–6.
    
    

13. 13.Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses, [http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp](http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp); 1999 mDecember 28, 2019].
    
    

14. 14.Li X, Su Y, Liu D, Yang J. The association between genetic variants in lactotransferrin and dental caries: a meta-and gene-based analysis. BMC Med Genet 2020;21(1):114.
    
    

15. 15.Fisher RA. Statistical methods for research workers. 5th ed. Edinburgh,: Oliver and Boyd; 1932.
    
    

16. 16.Simes RJ. An Improved Bonferroni Procedure for Multiple Tests of Significance. Biometrika 1986;73(3):751–54.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/biomet/73.3.751&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1986F027200029&link_type=ISI) 

17. 17.Hartung J.A Note on Combining Dependent Tests of Significance. Biometrical Journal 1999;41(7):849–55.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/(SICI)1521-4036(199911)41:7<849::AID-BIMJ849>3.0.CO;2-T&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000083860200007&link_type=ISI) 

18. 18.Zaykin DV, Zhivotovsky LA, Westfall PH, Weir BS. Truncated product method for combining P-values. Genet Epidemiol 2002;22(2):170–85.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/gepi.0042&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11788962&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000173390200006&link_type=ISI) 

19. 19.Sheng X, Yang J. Truncated product methods for panel unit root tests. Oxfor Bulletin of Economic and Statistics 2012.
    
    

20. 20.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(7):e1000097.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19621072&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

21. 21.Ouryouji K, Imamura Y, Fujigaki Y, et al. Analysis of mutations in the amelogenin and the enamelin genes in severe caries in Japanese pediatric patients. Pediatric Dental Journal 2008;18(2):79–85.
    
    

22. 22.Kang SW, Yoon I, Lee HW, Cho J. Association between AMELX polymorphisms and dental caries in Koreans. Oral Dis 2011;17(4):399–406.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1601-0825.2010.01766.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21114591&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

23. 23.Tannure PN, Kuchler EC, Falagan-Lotsch P, et al. MMP13 polymorphism decreases risk for dental caries. Caries Res 2012;46(4):401–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1159/000339379&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22710194&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

24. 24.Tannure PN, Kuchler EC, Lips A, et al. Genetic variation in MMP20 contributes to higher caries experience. J Dent 2012;40(5):381–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jdent.2012.01.015&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22330321&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

25. 25.Jeremias F, Koruyucu M, Kuchler EC, et al. Genes expressed in dental enamel development are associated with molar-incisor hypomineralization. Arch Oral Biol 2013;58(10):1434–42.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.05.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23790503&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

26. 26.Antunes LA, Antunes LS, Kuchler EC, et al. Analysis of the association between polymorphisms in MMP2, MMP3, MMP9, MMP20, TIMP1, and TIMP2 genes with white spot lesions and early childhood caries. Int J Paediatr Dent 2016;26(4):310–9.
    
    

27. 27.Gerreth K, Zaorska K, Zabel M, Borysewicz-Lewicka M, Nowicki M. Association of ENAM gene single nucleotide polymorphisms with dental caries in Polish children. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20(3):631–6.
    
    

28. 28.Karayasheva D, Glushkova M, Boteva E, Mitev V, Kadiyska T. Association study for the role of Matrix metalloproteinases 2 and 3 gene polymorphisms in dental caries susceptibility. Arch Oral Biol 2016;68:9–12.
    
    

29. 29.Cavallari T, Tetu Moyses S, Moyses SJ, Iani Werneck R. KLK4 Gene and Dental Decay: Replication in a South Brazilian Population. Caries Res 2017;51(3):240–43.
    
    

30. 30.Filho AV, Calixto MS, Deeley K, Santos N, Rosenblatt A, Vieira AR. MMP20 rs1784418 Protects Certain Populations against Caries. Caries Res 2017;51(1):46–51.
    
    

31. 31.Wang M, Qin M, Xia B. The association of Enamelin, Lactoferrin, and Tumour necrosis factor alpha gene polymorphisms with high caries susceptibility in Chinese children under 4 years old. Arch Oral Biol 2017;80:75–81.
    
    

32. 32.Koohpeima F, Hashemi-Gorji F, Mokhtari MJ. Evaluation of caries experience in two genders and ENAM polymorphism in Iranian adults. Meta Gene 2018;17:78–81.
    
    

33. 33.Borilova Linhartova P, Deissova T, Musilova K, et al. Lack of association between ENAM gene polymorphism and dental caries in primary and permanent teeth in Czech children. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22(4):1873–77.
    
    

34. 34.Devang Divakar D, Alanazi SAS, Assiri MYA, et al. Association between ENAM polymorphisms and dental caries in children. Saudi journal of biological sciences 2019;26(4):730–35.
    
    

35. 35.Hu XP, Song TZ, Zhu YY, et al. Association of ENAM, TUFT1, MMP13, IL1B, IL10 and IL1RN gene polymorphism and dental caries susceptibility in Chinese children. J Int Med Res 2019;47(4):1696–704.
    
    

36. 36.Vasconcelos KR, Arid J, Evangelista S, et al. MMP13 Contributes to Dental Caries Associated with Developmental Defects of Enamel. Caries Res 2019;53(4):441–46.
    
    

37. 37.Duran-Merino D, Molina-Frechero N, Sanchez-Perez L, et al. ENAM Gene Variation in Students Exposed to Different Fluoride Concentrations. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(6).
    
    

38. 38.Nicoline N, Partakusuma FB, Joenoes H, Talbot C, Auerkari EI. Association of ENAM C2452T Polymorphism with High Rates of Caries Occurrence in An Indonesian Population International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics 2020;12(1):1–4.
    
    

39. 39.Lau EC, Mohandas TK, Shapiro LJ, Slavkin HC, Snead ML. Human and mouse amelogenin gene loci are on the sex chromosomes. Genomics 1989;4(2):162–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/0888-7543(89)90295-4&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=2737677&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1989R935900006&link_type=ISI) 

40. 40.Gibson CW, Yuan ZA, Hall B, et al. Amelogenin-deficient mice display an amelogenesis imperfecta phenotype. J Biol Chem 2001;276(34):31871–5.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamJjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIyNzYvMzQvMzE4NzEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8wOS8yMi8yMDIwLjA5LjE5LjIwMTk4MDQ0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

41. 41.Hu CC, Hart TC, Dupont BR, et al. Cloning human enamelin cDNA, chromosomal localization, and analysis of expression during tooth development. J Dent Res 2000;79(4):912–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/00220345000790040501&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10831092&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000086921800004&link_type=ISI) 

42. 42.Shaffer JR, Carlson JC, Stanley BO, et al. Effects of enamel matrix genes on dental caries are moderated by fluoride exposures. Hum Genet 2015;134(2):159–67.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00439-014-1504-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=WOS:00034814&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

43. 43.Abbasoglu Z, Tanboga I, Kuchler EC, et al. Early childhood caries is associated with genetic variants in enamel formation and immune response genes. Caries Res 2015;49(1):70–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1159/000362825&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25531160&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 

44. 44.Fanchon S, Bourd K, Septier D, et al. Involvement of matrix metalloproteinases in the onset of dentin mineralization. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112(2):171–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1600-0722.2004.00120.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15056115&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000220549000010&link_type=ISI) 

45. 45.Fanjul-Fernandez M, Folgueras AR, Cabrera S, Lopez-Otin C. Matrix metalloproteinases: evolution, gene regulation and functional analysis in mouse models. Biochim Biophys Acta 2010;1803(1):3–19.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.bbamcr.2009.07.004&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19631700&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F09%2F22%2F2020.09.19.20198044.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000275508500002&link_type=ISI)