Bertl Michael H, Bertl Kristina, Wagner Manuel, Gahleitner André, Stavropoulos Andreas, Ulm Christian, Mitteroecker Philipp
Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malmö, Malmö, Sweden.
Int J Oral Sci. 2016 Dec 16;8(4):254-260. doi: 10.1038/ijos.2016.41.
The aim of this study was to compare mandibular form (i.e., size and shape) between patients with agenesis of the lower second premolar (P2) and a control group with no agenesis. Three hypotheses were tested: (H1) agenesis causes a change in mandibular morphology because of inadequate alveolar ridge development in the area of the missing tooth (mandibular plasticity); (H2) agenesis is caused by spatial limitations within the mandible (dental plasticity); and (H3) common genetic/epigenetic factors cause agenesis and affect mandibular form (pleiotropy). A geometric morphometric analysis was applied to cross-sectional images of computed tomography (CT) scans of three matched groups (n=50 each): (1) regularly erupted P2; (2) agenesis of P2 and the primary second molar in situ; and (3) agenesis of P2 and the primary second molar missing for >3 months. Cross-sections of the three areas of interest (first premolar, P2, first molar) were digitized with 23 landmarks and superimposed by a generalized Procrustes analysis. On average, the mandibular cross-sections were narrower and shorter in patients with P2 agenesis compared with that in the control group. Both agenesis groups featured a pronounced submandibular fossa. These differences extended at least one tooth beyond the agenesis-affected region. Taken together with the large interindividual variation that resulted in massively overlapping group distributions, these findings support genetic and/or epigenetic pleiotropy (H3) as the most likely origin of the observed covariation between mandibular form and odontogenesis. Clinically, reduced dimensions and greater variability of mandibular form, as well as a pronounced submandibular fossa, should be expected during the treatment planning of patients with P2 agenesis.
本研究的目的是比较下颌第二前磨牙(P2)发育不全患者与无发育不全的对照组之间的下颌形态(即大小和形状)。检验了三个假设:(H1)发育不全由于缺失牙区域牙槽嵴发育不足而导致下颌形态改变(下颌可塑性);(H2)发育不全是由下颌骨内的空间限制引起的(牙齿可塑性);以及(H3)共同的遗传/表观遗传因素导致发育不全并影响下颌形态(多效性)。对三个匹配组(每组n = 50)的计算机断层扫描(CT)横断面图像进行了几何形态测量分析:(1)P2正常萌出;(2)P2发育不全且乳磨牙原位保留;(3)P2发育不全且乳磨牙缺失超过3个月。用23个地标点对三个感兴趣区域(第一前磨牙、P2、第一磨牙)的横断面进行数字化处理,并通过广义普氏分析进行叠加。平均而言,与对照组相比,P2发育不全患者的下颌横断面更窄、更短。两个发育不全组均有明显的下颌下窝。这些差异至少延伸到受发育不全影响区域之外的一颗牙齿。这些发现与导致大量重叠组分布的个体间巨大差异相结合,支持遗传和/或表观遗传多效性(H3)是观察到的下颌形态与牙发生之间协变的最可能起源。临床上,在对P2发育不全患者进行治疗规划时,应预期下颌形态尺寸减小、变异性更大以及下颌下窝明显。
Orthod Craniofac Res. 2010-11
Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 2024-10
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015-11
Clin Oral Investig. 2023-3
Biology (Basel). 2022-4-1
Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2020-9
J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2017-12-31
Evolution. 1997-12
J Dent Res. 2015-4-24
Int J Oral Sci. 2015-9-14
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014
PLoS Genet. 2014-3-20
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014-3