Advertisement

Inheritance of Occlusal Topography: A Twin Study

  • C. Y. Su
  • P. M. Corby
  • M. A. Elliot
  • D. A. Studen-Pavlovich
  • D. N. Ranalli
  • B. Rosa
  • J. Wessel
  • N. J. Schork
  • T. C. Hart
  • W. A. BretzEmail author
Research

Summary

Aim: This was to determine the relative contribution of genetic factors on the morphology of occlusal surfaces of mandibular primary first molars by employing the twin study model. Methods: The occlusal morphology of mandibular primary first molar teeth from dental casts of 9 monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs and 12 dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs 4 to 7 years old, were digitized by contact-type three-dimensional (3D) scanner. To compare the similarity of occlusal morphology between twin sets, each twin pair of occlusal surfaces was superimposed to establish the best fit by using computerized least squared techniques. Heritability was computed using a variance component model, adjusted for age and gender. Results: DZ pairs demonstrated a greater degree of occlusal morphology variance. The total amount of difference in surface overlap was 0.0508 mm (0.0018 (inches) for the MZ (n=18) sample and 0.095 mm (0.0034 inches) for the DZ (n=24) sample and were not statistically significant (p=0.2203). The transformed mean differences were not statistically significantly different (p=0.2203). Heritability estimates of occlusal surface areas for right and left mandibular primary first molars were 97.5% and 98.2% (p<0.0001), respectively. Conclusions: Occlusal morphology of DZ twin pairs was more variable than that of MZ twin pairs. Heritability estimates revealed that genetic factors strongly influence occlusal morphology of mandibular primary first molars.

Key words

twins occlusal anatomy heritability first primary mandibular molar 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Almasy L, Blangero J. Multipoint quantitative-trait linkage analysis in general pedigrees. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62:1198–1211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggerstaff RH. Heritability of the Carabelli cusp in twins. J Dent Res. 1973;52:40–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boraas JC, Messer LB, Till MJ. A genetic contribution to dental caries, occlusion and morphology as demonstrated by twins reared apart. J Dent Res1988; 67:1150–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cai J, Cho SW, Kim JY, et al. Patterning the size and number of tooth and its cusps. Dev Biol. 2007 Jan 9; [Epub].Google Scholar
  5. Dempsey PJ, Townsend GC. Genetic and environmental contributions to variation in human tooth size. Heredity 2001;86:685–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jernval J, Aberg T, Kettunen P, Keranen S, Thesleff S. The life history of an embryonic signaling center: BMP-4 induces p21 and is associated with apoptosis in the mouse tooth enamel knot. Development. 1998;125:161–69.Google Scholar
  7. Jernvall J, Jung HS. Genotype, phenotype, and developmental biology of molar tooth characters. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2000;31:171–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jernvall J. Mamalian molar cusp patterns: Developmental mechanisms of diversity. Acta Zool Fennica. 1995;198:1–61.Google Scholar
  9. Jernvall, J, Kettunen P, Karavanova I, Martin LB, Thesleff I. Evidence for the role of the enamel knot as a control center in mammalian tooth cusp formation: non-dividing cells express growth stimulating Fgf-4 gene. Int J Dev Biol. 1994; 38:463–469.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kabban M, Fearne J, Jovanovski V, Zou L. Tooth size and morphology in twins. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2001;11:577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miletich I, Sharpe PT. Normal and abnormal dental development. Human Mol Genet. 2003;12:R69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pinkham JR, Casamassimo PS, Fields HW, McTigue DJ, Nowak A. Pediatric Dentistry: Infancy through Adolescence. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1999.Google Scholar
  13. Townsend G, Richards L, Hughes T. Molar intercuspal dimensions: genetic input to phenotypic variation. J Dent Res. 2003;82:350–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vaahtokari A, Aberg T, Jernvall J, Keranen S, Thesleff I. The enamel knot as a signaling center in the developing mouse tooth. Mech Dev. 1996; 54:39–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wright JT, Hart TC. The genome projects: implications for dental practice and education. J Dent Educ. 2002;66:659–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Zhang Y, Lundgren T, Renvert S et al. Evidence of a founder effect for four cathepsin C gene mutations in Papillon-Lefevre syndrome patients. J Med Genet. 2001;38:96–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Y. Su
    • 1
  • P. M. Corby
    • 2
  • M. A. Elliot
    • 1
  • D. A. Studen-Pavlovich
    • 1
  • D. N. Ranalli
    • 1
  • B. Rosa
    • 5
  • J. Wessel
    • 4
  • N. J. Schork
    • 4
  • T. C. Hart
    • 3
  • W. A. Bretz
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Dept. Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental MedicineUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh
  2. 2.Departments of Cariology & Comprehensive Care Periodontics and ImplantsNew York University College of DentistryNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Division of Intramural ResearchNIH/NIDCRBethesda
  4. 4.Scripps Genomic Medicine and The Scripps Research InstituteSan DiegoUSA
  5. 5.School of Dentistry, Department of ProsthodonticsUNIMONTESMontes ClarosBrazil

Personalised recommendations