Hylander W L, Johnson K R
Duke University Medical Center, Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1997 Feb;102(2):203-32. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199702)102:2<203::AID-AJPA5>3.0.CO;2-Z.
It has been proposed that the mammalian facial skeleton is optimized for countering or dissipating masticatory stress. As optimized load-bearing structures by definition exhibit maximum strength with a minimum amount of material, this hypothesis predicts that during chewing and biting there should be relatively high and near uniform amounts of strain throughout the facial skeleton. If levels of strain in certain areas of the facial skeleton are relatively low during these behaviors, this indicates that the amount of bone mass in these areas could be significantly reduced without resulting in the danger of structural failure due to repeated masticatory loads. Furthermore, and by definition, this indicates that these areas are not optimized for countering masticatory stress, and instead their overall morphology and concentration of bone mass has most likely been selected or influenced mainly by factors unrelated to the dissipation or countering of chewing and biting forces. An analysis of in vivo bone strain along the lateral aspect of the zygomatic arch of macaques indicates the clear absence of a high and near uniform strain environment throughout its extent. Instead, there is a steep strain gradient along the zygomatic arch, with the highest strains along its anterior portion, intermediate strains along its middle portion, and the lowest strains along its posterior portion. These data, in combination with earlier published data (Hylander et al., 1991), indicate that levels of functional strains during chewing and biting are highly variable from one region of the face to the next, and therefore it is unlikely that all facial bones are especially designed so as to minimize bone tissue and maximize strength for countering masticatory loads. Thus, the functional significance of the morphology of certain facial bones need not necessarily bear any important or special relationship to routine and habitual cyclical mechanical loads associated with chewing or biting. Furthermore, the presence of these steep strain gradients within the facial skeleton suggests that the amount of bone mass in the low-strain areas may be largely determined by factors unrelated to processes frequently referred to as "functional adaptation," or conversely, that the "optimal strain environment" of bone varies enormously throughout the facial skeleton (cf., Rubin et al., 1994). Based solely on anatomical considerations, it is likely that the zygomatic arch is bent in both the parasagittal and transverse planes and twisted about its long axis. Due to constraints on rosette position, the strain data are incapable of determining if one or more of these loading conditions predominate. Instead, the strain data simply provide limited support for the possible presence of all of these loading regimes. Finally, as the masseter muscle is concentrated along the anterior portion of the zygomatic arch and as the arch has fixed ends, the largest shearing forces and the largest bending and twisting moments are located along its anterior portion. This in turn explains why the largest strains are found along the anterior portion of the zygomatic arch.
有人提出,哺乳动物的面部骨骼经过优化,以抵抗或消散咀嚼压力。由于优化的承重结构根据定义是以最少的材料展现出最大的强度,这一假说预测,在咀嚼和咬食过程中,整个面部骨骼应存在相对较高且近乎均匀的应变。如果在这些行为中面部骨骼某些区域的应变水平相对较低,这表明这些区域的骨量可以显著减少,而不会因反复的咀嚼负荷而导致结构失效的危险。此外,根据定义,这表明这些区域并非针对抵抗咀嚼压力进行优化,相反,它们的整体形态和骨量集中情况很可能主要是由与消散或抵抗咀嚼和咬合力无关的因素所选择或影响的。对猕猴颧弓外侧的体内骨应变分析表明,在其整个范围内明显不存在高且近乎均匀的应变环境。相反,沿着颧弓存在一个陡峭的应变梯度,其前部应变最高,中部应变适中,后部应变最低。这些数据与早期发表的数据(海兰德等人,1991年)相结合,表明在咀嚼和咬食过程中,不同面部区域的功能应变水平差异很大,因此不太可能所有面部骨骼都经过特殊设计,以尽量减少骨组织并最大化抵抗咀嚼负荷的强度。因此,某些面部骨骼形态的功能意义不一定与咀嚼或咬食相关的常规和习惯性周期性机械负荷有任何重要或特殊的关系。此外,面部骨骼中这些陡峭应变梯度的存在表明,低应变区域的骨量可能在很大程度上由与通常所说的“功能适应”过程无关的因素决定,或者相反,骨骼的“最佳应变环境”在整个面部骨骼中差异极大(参见鲁宾等人,1994年)。仅基于解剖学考虑,颧弓很可能在矢状旁平面和横向平面都发生弯曲,并围绕其长轴扭转。由于对应变片位置的限制,应变数据无法确定这些加载条件中的一种或多种是否占主导地位。相反,应变数据只是为所有这些加载方式的可能存在提供了有限的支持。最后,由于咬肌集中在颧弓前部,且颧弓两端固定,最大的剪切力以及最大的弯曲和扭转力矩都位于其前部。这反过来解释了为什么在颧弓前部发现最大的应变。