Dimensional and discrete dental trait asymmetry relationships
John T. Mayhall, Shelley R. Saunders
Abstract
John T. Mayhall, Shelley R. Saunders
Abstract
Inuit (Eskimos) from the Foxe Basin region of the Northwest Territories, Canada, were studied to ascertain the amount of dimensional and morphological asymmetry in their dentitions. The results indicate that dimensional asymmetry does not appear to be greater on either the maxillary or mandibular teeth. Both types of asymmetry show partial conformity to the model of tooth fields with an increasing amount of asymmetry as one goes distally in each tooth group. The morphological asymmetry exception, the mandibular incisors, follows Dahlberg's "Field Concept." Rank-order correlations between the amount of dimensional asymmetry and morphological asymmetry reveal no detectable patterns. There appear to be no associations between the presence or absence of morphological asymmetry and the size of the tooth. This lack of association might be explained by differences in developmental timing of tooth dimensions and morphological traits; however, such a hypothesis requires experimental testing. In this population and those for which published results are available, it is practically impossible to overcome the "noise" level and test recent hypotheses regarding random dental asymmetry.
OpenAlex reports 70 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Inuit (Eskimos) from the Foxe Basin region of the Northwest Territories, Canada, were studied to ascertain the amount of dimensional and morphological asymmetry in their dentitions. The results indicate that dimensional asymmetry does not appear to be greater on either the maxillary or mandibular teeth. Both types of asymmetry show partial conformity to the model of tooth fields with an increasing amount of asymmetry as one goes distally in each tooth group. The morphological asymmetry exception, the mandibular incisors, follows Dahlberg's "Field Concept." Rank-order correlations between the amount of dimensional asymmetry and morphological asymmetry reveal no detectable patterns. There appear to be no associations between the presence or absence of morphological asymmetry and the size of the tooth. This lack of association might be explained by differences in developmental timing of tooth dimensions and morphological traits; however, such a hypothesis requires experimental testing. In this population and those for which published results are available, it is practically impossible to overcome the "noise" level and test recent hypotheses regarding random dental asymmetry.
Key concepts: Asymmetry, Fluctuating asymmetry, Trait, Population, Biology, Orthodontics, Evolutionary biology, Demography