Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/53545
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Type: | Conference paper |
Title: | Morphogenetic fields within the human dentition: a new, clinically relevant synthesis of an old concept |
Author: | Townsend, G. Harris, E. Lesot, H. Clauss, F. Brook, A. |
Citation: | Archives of Oral Biology, 2009, vol.54, iss.Suppl. 1, pp.S34-S44 |
Publisher: | Pergamon-Elsevier Science Ltd |
Publisher Place: | The Boulevard Langford Lane Kidlington Oxford England OX5 1GB |
Issue Date: | 2009 |
ISSN: | 0003-9969 1879-1506 |
Conference Name: | International Workshop on Oral Growth and Development (26 Nov 2008 - 28 Nov 2007 : Liverpool) |
Statement of Responsibility: | Grant Townsend, Edward F. Harris, Herve Lesot, Francois Clauss and Alan Brook |
Abstract: | This paper reviews the concept of morphogenetic fields within the dentition that was first proposed by Butler (Butler PM. Studies of the mammalian dentition. Differentiation of the post-canine dentition. Proc Zool Soc Lond B 1939;109:1-36), then adapted for the human dentition by Dahlberg (Dahlberg AA. The changing dentition of man. J Am Dent Assoc 1945;32:676-90; Dahlberg AA. The dentition of the American Indian. In: Laughlin WS, editor. The Physical Anthropology of the American Indian. New York: Viking Fund Inc.; 1951. p. 138-76). The clone theory of dental development, proposed by Osborn (Osborn JW. Morphogenetic gradients: fields versus clones. In: Butler PM, Joysey KA, editors Development, function and evolution of teeth. London: Academic Press, 1978. p. 171-201), is then considered before these two important concepts are interpreted in the light of recent findings from molecular, cellular, genetic and theoretical and anthropological investigation. Sharpe (Sharpe PT. Homeobox genes and orofacial development. Connect Tissue Res 1995;32:17-25) put forward the concept of an odontogenic homeobox code to explain how different tooth classes are initiated in different parts of the oral cavity in response to molecular cues and the expression of specific groups of homeobox genes. Recently, Mitsiadis and Smith (Mitsiadis TA, Smith MM. How do genes make teeth to order through development? J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 2006; 306B:177-82.) proposed that the field, clone and homeobox code models could all be incorporated into a single model to explain dental patterning. We agree that these three models should be viewed as complementary rather than contradictory and propose that this unifying view can be extended into the clinical setting using findings on dental patterning in individuals with missing and extra teeth. The proposals are compatible with the unifying aetiological model developed by Brook (Brook AH. A unifying aetiological explanation for anomalies of tooth number and size. Archs Oral Biol 1984;29:373-78) based on human epidemiological and clinical findings. Indeed, this new synthesis can provide a sound foundation for clinical diagnosis, counselling and management of patients with various anomalies of dental development as well as suggesting hypotheses for future studies. |
Keywords: | Dentition Tooth Animals Mammals Humans Tooth Abnormalities Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental Morphogenesis Body Patterning Maxillofacial Development Odontogenesis Genes, Homeobox Biological Evolution |
Rights: | Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved. |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2008.06.011 |
Published version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2008.06.011 |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 5 Dentistry publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.