Comparative Dental Morphology
14th International Symposium on Dental Morphology, Greifswald, August 2008: Selected papersEditor(s): Koppe T. (Greifswald)
Meyer G. (Greifswald)
Alt K.W. (Mainz)
Brook A. (Liverpool)
Dean M.C. (London)
Kjaer I. (Copenhagen)
Lukacs J.R. (Eugene, Oreg.)
Smith B.H. (Ann Arbor, Mich.)
Teaford M.F. (Baltimore, Md.)
Molar Crown and Root Size Relationship in Anthropoid PrimatesKupczik K. · Olejniczak A.J. · Skinner M.M. · Hublin J.-J.
Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Mandibular corpus form is thought to reflect masticatory function and the size of the dentition, but there is no universal association between crown dimensions and corpus size across anthropoids. Previous research was based on the assumption that crown size is an appropriate proxy for overall tooth size, but this hypothesis remains largely untested. This study assesses the relationship between the volume and surface area of molar crowns and roots by examining two main hypotheses: (1) crown size correlates significantly with root size, and (2) the proportion of root-to-crown surface area is related to dietary proclivity. Permanent M2s (n = 58) representing 19 anthropoid species were CT scanned and the volume and surface area of the crown and root were measured. Interspecific correlation and regression analyses reveal significant isometric relationships between crown and root volume and a positive allometric relationship between root and crown surface area (i.e. as crown surface area increases, root surface area becomes disproportionately greater). Intraspecifically, crown and root surface area correlate significantly in some species where such analyses were possible. In general, hard object feeders exhibit relatively larger root surface area per unit crown surface area compared to soft and tough object feeders. The results also show that despite differences in food specialization closely related species have similar root-to-crown surface area proportions, thus indicating a strong phylogenetic influence. Since it is possible that, at least in some species, crown and root size vary independently, future studies should elucidate the relationship between tooth root size and mandible form.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
Plavcan JM, Daegling DJ: Interspecific and intraspecific relationships between tooth size and jaw size in primates. J Hum Evol 2006;51:171-184
Garn SM, Van Alstine WL, Cole PE: Relationship between root lengths and crown diameters of corresponding teeth. J Dent Res 1978;57:636
Ozaki T, Satake T, Kanazawa E: Morphological significance of root length variability in comparison with other crown dimensions. II. Correlation between crown and root measurements. J Nih Univ S Dent 1988;30:11-21
Spencer MA: Tooth-root form and function in platyrrhine seed-eaters. Am J Phys Anthrop 2003;122:325-335
Kupczik K, Dean MC: Comparative observations on the tooth root morphology of Gigantopithecus blacki. J Hum Evol 2008;54:196-204
Kovacs I: A systematic description of dental roots. (eds) Dahlberg AA: Dental Morphology and Evolution Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1971;211-256
Kinzey WG: Ceboid models for the evolution of hominoid dentition. J Hum Evol 1974;3:193-203
Kay RF: The nut-crackers: a new theory of the adaptations of the Ramapitheci-nae. Am J Phys Anthrop 1981;55:141-151
Lambert JE, Chapman CA, Wrangham RW, Conklin-Brittain NL: Hardness of cercopithecine foods: implications for the critical function of enamel thickness in exploiting fallback foods. Am J Phys Anthrop 2004;125:363-368
Palombit RA: Inter- and intraspecific variation in the diets of sympatric siamang (Hylobates syndactylus) and lar gibbons (Hylobates lar). Folia Primatol 1997;68:321-337
Lucas PW, Teaford MF: Functional morphology of colobine teeth. (eds) Davies AG, Oates JF: Colobine Monkeys: Their Ecology, Behaviour and Evolution Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994;173-203
Martin LB, Olejniczak AJ, Maas MC: Enamel thickness and microstructure in pitheciin primates, with comments on dietary adaptations of the middle Miocene hominoid Kenyapithecus. J Hum Evol 2003;45:351-367
Taylor AB, Vogel ER, Dominy NJ: Food material properties and mandibular load resistance abilities in large-bodied hominoids. J Hum Evol 2008;55:604-616
Vogel ER, van Woerden JT, Lucas PW, Utami Atmoko SS, van Schaik CP, Dominy NJ: Functional ecology and evolution of hominoid molar enamel thickness: Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii and Pongo pygmaeus wurmbii. J Hum Evol 2008;55:60-74
Wolpoff MH: Some aspects of human mandibular evolution. (eds) McNamara JA, Jr: Determinants of Mandibular Form and Growth. Craniofacial Growth Series Ann Arbor, Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, 1975;4:1-64
Wood BA: Allometry and hominid studies. (eds) Bishop WW: Geological Background to Fossil Man Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press, 1978;125-128
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.