Literature DB >> 7802614

Variation in enamel thickness and cusp area within human maxillary molars and its bearing on scaling techniques used for studies of enamel thickness between species.

G A Macho1.   

Abstract

Thirty-nine unworn maxillary molars (M1 = 18, M2 = 12, M3 = 9), representing 37 individuals of a Slavic population, were sectioned through the mesial cusps in a plane perpendicular to the cervical margin of the crown. Whether the range of variation in enamel cross-sectional area between individuals corresponds to the range of variation found between teeth within a species was investigated. Total tooth crown area, as determined by planimetry, was used as a scaling factor on the basis that a biologically meaningful scaling procedure should take into account both enamel thickness and total tooth crown area, rather than the size of the dentine-enamel junction. Uni- and multivariate statistics revealed that the enamel cross-sectional area of second and third molars is absolutely and relatively larger than it is in first upper molars and that it scales close to isometry with tooth crown area. Conversely, first maxillary molars, with their relatively and absolutely thinner enamel, exhibit positive allometry between enamel and tooth crown area. These patterns were retained even when differences in overall tooth size were adjusted for. Hence, the notion that there exists a 'species-specific' amount of enamel over the tooth crown must be reconsidered, and one should refrain from pooling different tooth types for taxonomic purposes. At least two scaling factors are needed to describe human maxillary molars alone. However, this increase in enamel cross-sectional area from anterior to posterior is not unexpected if one bears in mind that posterior teeth occupy a more advantageous position relative to the chewing muscles.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7802614     DOI: 10.1016/0003-9969(94)90008-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Oral Biol        ISSN: 0003-9969            Impact factor:   2.633


  5 in total

1.  Enamel thickness in the Middle Miocene great apes Anoiapithecus, Pierolapithecus and Dryopithecus.

Authors:  D M Alba; J Fortuny; S Moyà-Solà
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  Progress in understanding hominoid dental development.

Authors:  C Dean
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.610

3.  Genetic integration of molar cusp size variation in baboons.

Authors:  Christina Koh; Elizabeth Bates; Elizabeth Broughton; Nicholas T Do; Zachary Fletcher; Michael C Mahaney; Leslea J Hlusko
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.868

4.  Baseline characteristics as 3-year predictors of tooth fracture and crack progression: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Thomas J Hilton; Ellen Funkhouser; Jack L Ferracane; Gregg H Gilbert; Valeria V Gordan; Dorota T Kopycka-Kedzierawski; Cyril Meyerowitz; Rahma Mungia; Vanessa Burton
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 3.634

5.  Human enamel thickness and ENAM polymorphism.

Authors:  Diane M Daubert; Joanna L Kelley; Yuriy G Udod; Carolina Habor; Chris G Kleist; Ilona K Furman; Igor N Tikonov; Willie J Swanson; Frank A Roberts
Journal:  Int J Oral Sci       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 6.344

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.