This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
BEECHER AND ROBERT
Dr. Beecher is Assistant Professor, Department of Anatomy at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. He is a graduate of the University of Virginia, and holds a Ph.D. degree in anthropology from Duke University. Dr. Corruccini is Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. He is a graduate of the University of Colorado, and holds a Ph.D. degree in anthropology and paleontology from the University of California at Berkeley. Address: Dr. Robert M. Beecher Department of Anatomy Wright State University Medicine Dayton, OH 45435
Moderate differences in the hardness of diet are related to significant differences in maxillary width and other measures of facial size. Probably even more important is a relationship to the coordination of growth of different parts of the dentofacial complex. Muscular stimulation mediated through occlusal function seems to play a significant role in the coordinated development of facial structures.
MODERN DIET AND MALOCCLUSION
This study was supported by a Biomedical Research Support Grant from Wright State University.
The prevalence of malocclusions in an urbanized society such as the United States is so high (50%1) that one is led to suspect the involvement of environmental factors in the etiology. Non-western, hunter-gatherer peoples are characterized by much lower frequencies of malocclusion." However, the transition of peoples from rural or aboriginal to urban or industrial living has been rapidly followed by an increase in the incidence of malocclusion. This increase is found whether comparing medieval Europeans to recent ones--- or nonwestern peoples to their immediate descendents living in a westernized environmen t. 2,5-15 There is a strong genetic factor in the development of occlusion. Occlusal patterns within families have been demonstrated to be heritable to some degree,16,17 and ethnic groups have been characterized by the frequencies of particular occlusal patterns.18-21 61
The maxillae of these animals showed reduced vertical and prognathic growth. (2) placing devices in the mouth to effect alterations in mastication. affect the developing masticatory apparatus and create variations in the occlusal phenotype. (3) restricting animals to calorie-deprivation diets. older animals responded with tooth movements to adjust to the new occlusal alignments. and (4) varying the consistency of the diet from hard to soft.sv-" A crown on the maxillary buccal teeth of rhesus monkeys was used by MeNamara-" to force the mandibular molars to occlude slightly lower than the normal occlusal surface of the uppers. we believe that environmental factors. and ('1) an increase in the angle formed by a line running from the condyle down the ramus with the line representing the occlusal plane. especially the physical consistency of the diet. racial outcrossing. mouth breathing is probably a factor in the development of human malocclusions. Mandibular protrusion in young animals resulted in changes in the temporomandibular joint. (3) lengthened condylar neck. Similar differences were also found in soft-diet rats. The rapid increase in the incidence of malocclusion (often within one generation) gives cause to look beyond genetic explanations such as relaxed selection pressures. Experimen Is in effects of function Apart from radical surgery.> Disrupted occlusion The prevalence of an occlusion that varies from the ideal is not the norm among mammals. growing animals responded to this stress by skeletal adaptations. (2) bone resorption of the anterior edges of the glenoid fossa. Several workers have applied stress to the masticatory apparatus or have altered occlusal relationships using appliances fastened to the teeth of rats or rhesus monkeys. This movement resulted in short-term periodontal traumas which abated when The Angle Orthodontist .vSuch effects are common in humans. the experimental attempts to induce developmental change in the mammalian masticatory apparatus have used four methods': (I) forcing mouth breathing in animals. While the younger. Mouth breathing Mouth breathing has been implicated experimentally (using macaques) in the development of open bite and or an abnormally narrow maxillary dental arch.0 mm in order to achieve molar occlusion. or accumulation of genetic mutations.62 Beecher and Corruccini probably due to a reduction in muscle use rather than increased. Based on the available anthropological and experimental evidence. Using mature animals and a splint on the anterior teeth to force mandibular protrusion. attributed to altered muscle tension as the mandible is held slightly depressed during respiration. inbreeding. Hiniker and RamsIjord= also found dentitional changes as teeth were forced to move to maintain occlusal relationships. specifically: (1) some posterior bone deposition.5-2. These are usually designed to force protrusion of the mandible 1. A cornman habit in childhood. Schultz= documents that dental crowding is quite rare in primates} and neither any of the specimens he presents nor any of the 400 wild primate dentitions that one of us (RSC) has examined would rate a Treatment Priority Index (TPI) score higher than 2. abnormally-directed muscle tension.
Attachment areas for the jawclosing muscles. there is no evidence to correlate this deficiency with the occlusal problems found in so many urbanized peoples of the western world." Barber. Rehabilitation was only partiall y successful. Watt and Williams. All mandibular structures related to chewing were affected by diet hardness. Nutrition Experiments concerning the contribution of nutrition to normal occlusal development have taken the form of calorie deprivation of pigs. Owens and Tonge= used weanling animals. The smaller masticatory muscles in soft-diet animals were almost certainly a result of lower work requirement in mastication. These studies demonstrate that forced realignments of occlusal relationships and mandibular movements lead to responses by the most flexible elements of the masticatory apparatus. (4) had less width of the maxillary dental arch. and (6) had skulls consistently smaller in mass and in linear dimensions. which resist bite (especially incisal) reaction force. and (2) "greater delay in the development and growth of the jaws.used weanling rats divided into populations eating either pelle ted rat chow as a hard diet or crushed or water-softened chow as a soft diet.32 Moore. was less in the soft-diet animals. were smaller. While calorie deprivation is undoubtedly a factor to consider in severely undernourished people. 1981 Development 63 four studies have examined this idea experimentally. Wear of the molar. More recently. especially in the mandible. When compared to the harddiet rats. Sagne and Thilander. which is essential to resist transverse bending. The authors found that their regime resulted in: (I) delayed dental development and eruption." and Henrikson. The smaller and less-active muscles applied less stress to the bones. where toothfood-tooth contact takes place.Diet Consistency jOcclusal the teeth adapted and once again occluded adequately."29 The consequences were tooth crowding and abnormal tooth-tooth contacts. was less. Vol. before attempting to "rehabilitate" some with proper foods. with condyles smaller and radiographically less dense. Green. the soft-diet animals: (I) were slightly smaller in body mass. the dentition migrates to accommodate. The condyles. In all studies. Dietary consistency Although many workers have commented on the probable influence of the hardness or softness of the diet on the developing masticatory system. and COX. they do not create conditions likely to be encountered by the developing human masticatory system. (5) had smaller masseter and temporalis muscles. They .29 McCance. although with no significant differences in shape. the growing skeletal system adjusts. were smaller. maintaining them for one year on a severe calorie-deficient diet. 1 January. Beecher and Corruccini35 examined a small population of rhesus macaques which had spent a short period during adolescence on contrasting hard/soft diets. (3) had mandibles that were smaller. in older animals. In young animals. the animals were maintained for approximately four months.28. Even buccolingual thickness of the mandible. where muscle force is transmitted to the mandible. (2) exhibited no molar wear. 51 No. which responded with less deposition and growth. Tonge and McCance. While these experiments are important in assessing the response of the masticatory system to unusual mechanical stress.
related to factor analysis. The three populations were maintained on their respective diets for four months.he correlations among the several variables. Ninety animals were divided into three groups: Group I was fed pelletted rat chow (Purina Formulab). The eigenvect. 'While a number of measurements have been taken from animals in dietary consistency experiments. Least-squares theory is used to rotate orthogonal axes to a position where the major axis subsumes a maximized amount of the total variance. It was to fill these gaps in the experimental record that the following study was carried out. Animals were also examined for visible differences in tooth alignments and attritional differences between the three groups. resulting in a lj uantum change in the morphology of the masticatory system. Anteroposterior length of condylar articular surface. easily breaking down into small granules. We found the lab chow to be crumbly. This technique. Measurements Crable I) were taken as follows: 1. Mandibular length. Further. Maxillary arch breadth across buccal points of ?vII. 4. This correlated with the histological findings by Bouvier and Hylander-" that significantly fewer secondary Haversian systems were present in the mandibular corpus of soft-diet monkeys than in the hard-diet monkeys of the same population. incisor to distal edge of last molar.ors (also known as directional cosines or latent vectors) summarize the multiple interplay among variables. acquired at 21 days of age. Fresh mass of the entire masseter. engendering only subtle differences in bite force. hard and soft diet. with only two groups. it could not be determined whether the masticatory system responded in direct proportion to differences in dietary consistency. 3. Projection of indiThe Angle Orthodontist found significant narrowing of the maxillary arch with no lessening in length in the soft-diet monkeys. After sacrifice. or whether no differences should be expected until a threshold in dietary consistency difference was reached.64 Beecher and Corruccini than the gruel. MATERIALS AND METHODS The experimental animals were Sprague-Dawley rats. We have no way of knowing the consistency of rat diets used in earlier experiments of this type. 5. incisor to Ml. the same length of time used in previous experiments of this type. finds the major axes of the between-variable correlation matrix. The second axis is the axis perpendicular to the first that subsumes the largest possible amount of residual variance. 2. 6. evenly divided between males and females. Body mass. Maxillary arch length. A principal components analysis was performed on the data in order to discover t. there has been no attempt to integrate these data in such a way that interactions between different parts of the growing masticatory systems could be measured. with dry pellets provided every seventh day only. This indicates that the "hard" diet was minimally harder . Group II I was fed the soft diet six days. the heads were randomly numbered so that the measurer would not be aware of their group membership. Croup 11 was fed a gruel-like porridge consisting of ground chow moistened with water. and so on.
64 8. although more similar to the soft group. The comparison of correlation structure can be more easily accomplished through examination of the principal components of the correlation matrix. and functional interpretation of the morphological integration among variables. The population reared on an intermittently hard diet (Group III) is generally intermediate in the size of structures. Table 2 indicates the pairwise correlations in the hard and soft diet groups (I and II). a result attributable to the small differences in dietary consistency.40) om AoV with 2 and 87 d.26 38.65) ( 0. Masseter weight (gm) . signifying that all structures are more tightly integrated in their growth and covariation.43 43.18 lAO Intermittent Mean (s.92 3. which is much more integrated with growth in the condyle and upper arch breadth in hard-diet than in soft-diet animals. Table 3 lists key paramo eters of this analysis. The gross differences in the growth of most structures are not very marked. but usually closer to Group I..05..36) (9.72 1. 51 No. For instance. significant < . Condyle Length Body weight (gm) . Maxillary Breadth (mm) .48) Soft Mean (s.20) ( 0. The major (coordinated growth) axis is largest in the hard-diet sample. Variable Maxillary Length (mm) .d.) 23.~6) (0.d. but not significantly so..39 8.41) (12.79 9.39) (11.7 I 9. Vol..57 4.44 at p (0.28) (or Measured Traits F 0.56 ( 1. and the differences are often significant. this measurement alone shows a differentiation that is too large (relative to within-sample variation) to be reasonably ascribed to chance. Group I is more variable than Group II in every measurement. Inversely related to this. the second axis is largest among the softdiet animals.40) ( 0. The strongest difference is in the growth relation of the masseter muscle.89 3.) 24. greater variation away [rom a major principal components axis describing general growth could be interpreted as meaning that there is poorer coordination of regional growth rates in those individuals.46) ( 0.Diet Consistency jOcclusal vidual cases onto the principal component axes allows interrpretation of multivariate variabilitv within samples. Group III is intermediate in standard deviation..50) (0.91 3.31 39..1 January. • 3-sample TABLE I and Significance of Difference Hard Mean (s.38) ( 0.45 8.58) ( 0. RESULTS Development 65 more variable than Group I in the maxillary arch measurements. Dispersion. Group III is slightly A much more obvious feature of difference is manifested in the COl'relation structure between measurements within samples..38 2. 1981 ...01) lAO ( 0. Breakdown in growth coordination Mcxillary breadth affected most The basic descriptive statistics in Table I show the hard-diet population (Group 1) to be larger in all dimensions and disproportionately so in some.. the maxillary breadth is markedly increased in the hard-diet reared animals (Group I).32) (0. Thus the residual from Mean. All correlations are higher in the animals that had more masticatory resistance. indicating a greater range of sizes. Mandibular Length (mm) (mm) .03 1. Again.17) ( 0.00 9.d.21' 1.f.) ~:I.43 ( 1.88) (0. In particular.
.Ve examined the occlusal surfaces of the rat molars as a further test of the comparability of our hard chow and that used thirty years ago by Watt and Williams. the F-ratio of variation on axis two (dispersion from axis one) between soft and hard samples is 2... a decrease in correlation of masticatory structures is more noteworthy than de- = '.. We noticed no displaced or rotated teeth in any of the animals.66 Beecher and Corruccini crease in size of the structures that seems to follow with a stronger dietary differentiation... Masseter weight .74 0.. Perhaps a decrease in buffering among the growing components is the first step in their decrease in size."] ""hile they noted easily observable differences in attrition between soft and hard diet groups.. . • Significantly larger Max.05.. most chewing stress has been removed and little bite force is now called into play in the jaws of the growing child. Only in the 19th and 20th centuries (il apIJcars) has food become so processed tha t for practical purposes.78 0. DISCUSSION Present-day insults to occlusion Oppenheimer" and Lavell-v document the better occlusion that existed in human populations prior to the onset of the industrial revolution. This increased multivariate variability in soft-diet animals is all the more striking in view of the fact that they were less variable than the hardfood animals in every univariate trait.... condyle length.. Condyle Length . Mandibular Length .. In all respects.. No caries were observed by us in any animals. The Angle Orthodontist . Ii Mand.72 Condo 0. Condyle length alone shows a notable residual on the second axis in Group I and III. ~ e: 0. the intermittent-harddiet group (III) is intermediate when compared with Groups I and 11 but more similar to the hard-diet sample. Body weight .85 Groups Mussel..L 0...differentiation represented by this difference in dietary consistency... Thus...79· 0... This phenomenon has also been noted in characters that are diminishing in size through natural selection. Maxillary Breadth . Masseter weight tends to be inversely correlated with maxillary breadth and condyle length on the second axis in soft animals. IMaxillary Length .75· 0. 0. . at the stage of growrh.39 diet sample at p :c .89 0..38 Attrition not affected the major growth aXIS (which could be interpreted as error in growth or variation in growth rate) is easily largest in the soft diet sample...83· 0.. TABLE 2 Product-moment Correlations Among Variables Within the Soft (lower triangular half of matrix) and Hard (upper triangular half) Dietary Max.79· 0.H3 0.71 Soft diet ~ r in hard < ..5%. we could find none.19. which is significantly greater than expected by random error at P 2.55 0..37..60 0......66 Body 0.54 0. The correlations of variables with the axes show that the breakdown in growth coordination in soft-diet animals is especially marked in maxillary breadth.... and masseter weight....93· 0..91· 0.
80 0. Tooth spacing and crowding. disturbance of synchronous development in separately growing parts. Because of its widespread occurrence in western society.95 (variation in growth) Soft Intermittent 0.12 0.96 (83) 0. oral habits. endocrine disturbance.60 (10) -0. In particular.16 -0.50 (8) -0. especially of anterior teeth.08 -0. Potter et alY demonstrate that upper and lower dental arches are under very different sorts of genetic control. with the maxillary teeth being more conservative and controlled by a fewer number of genes. The aging process also yields different results in upper and lower arches. 51 No.41 -0.90 0. and independence of tooth formation.Diet Consistency/Occlusal A number of other environmental factors have been suggested as influences on developing occlusion. as shown by the tendency of some indi- Development 67 viduals with anodontia to have average-size mandibles.73 -0. since cases of anodontia show restricted growth while cases with muscular paralysis may develop normally. the mandible may depend on muscular function to grow to average size.:" Maxillary growth may be under closer genetic programming.17 (69) 0.95 4.08 0.68 0.57 -0.w Moorrees and Reed. trauma." also stress the importance of high correlation between tooth and arch size to the development of good occlusion. Though the chewing explanation is most predictive of observed occlusal differences in the rats. 1981 . premature deciduous tooth loss.05 -0.91 0.04 0.77 0.82 0.93 0. including mouth breathing. follows different rates and peaks at different ages in the maxilla and mandible.80 One Principal Component Hard Two growth) Intermittent 4.67 (78) 0.18 -0. the reduction of chewing resistance and related growth stimulation provided by "civilized" man's refined diet may be the strongest causal factor in developmental malocclusions.e-v Lower correlation between upper and lower teeth in maloccluded individuals (as compared with normal) has been noted by Lavelle.89 0. considerable evidence ties upper-lower correlation diminution with development of mal- TABLE 3 Eigen Values (latent roots) and Eigenvectors (latent vectors) of the Correlation Matrices in Three Dietary Groups Principal Component (coordinated Hard Soft EigenValue ('70 variance) Eigenvector correlations: Maxillary Length Maxillary Breadth Mandibular Length Condyle Length Body weight Masseter weight 4. Thus. it clearly is not favored by many orthodontists as an explanation of the rising rate of occlusal variation in humans.06 -0.90 0.68 0. prenatal insult.w Carrr" lists breakdown of synchronous growth in lower and upper jaws as a possible cause of malocclusion.97 0.51 0.79 (13) -0.14 0. but does not give the source of the growth-correlation breakdown.42-45 The growth independence of mandible and maxilla in humans has been frequently noted.23 0.06 -0.89 0.59 -0. posture. hormonal intervention.92 0. 1 January.41•42 Some of these may be of minimal or no importance.29 0.94 0. experimental evidence which might weight such factors is absent.10 Vol.96 0.
40 (Suppl. teeth. Ortluul.. and continual incisor function in rodents maintains a base level of function regardless of diet that has no parallel in man. Dent. lium. Hunt. W. Solomon Islands. J.: An assessment of occlusion of youths 12·17 years. Lu. B. Orthod.: Investigations concerning the dentitions of the Eskimos of Canada's Eastern Arctic. 19:543-553.: Maxillary dental arch width in Chinese living in Liverpool. ~ 1. and Harvey.. the inheritance of different-sized parts that must occlude is attributed to the independent segregation of disharmonious genes from disparate ancestors. 24:1640· 1647. and Frei. 9. M. 17:231-233. Orthod.: Dental observations among the Eskimos. Genet. Price. In this animal population the disassociation in size of occlusal features during their growth. 1937. Klatsky.°o and Lombardi and Bailit. 1937. A.68 Beecher and Corruccini REFERENCES occlusion in humans. Res. H. B. 4. 23:417-437.: Anglo-Saxon and modern British teeth..: Mal· occlusion in the Kwaio. The unfused mandibular symphysis in the rat alters force distribution. E. 1961. 1951. J.: The Downs analysis applied to three ethnic groups. J. Dent. J. D. Henrikson. 1947. 11. Waugh. Sagne. 60:344354. 1977. 36:385. Dent. Soc. Trans. Washington. Bjork.-A. M. 1968. A.: Further studies on the Xavantc Indians. Am. J. 1948. IG:355-356. V. Takano. 6. 36:283·294. Am. Alii. The prevailing explanation for such lowering of growth correspondence has been the effect of racial admixture between populations. 1972. J. Am. Tiss. Am. Res. USPHS. 5. 5b).. R. 21 :213-220. Assoc. L. 16. Res. Cotton. Orthod. previously noted in certain groups of maloccluded humans and attributed to racial admixture. Dent.v-se Thus. Lavelle. Vital and Health Statistics. Periodont . Chung et al.: Studies in the dietaries of contemporary primitive peoples. Calci]. 7. CONCLUSION We believe our results suggest future directions for fruitful research based on the following observations. J. W. S. Niswander. Kelly. Anthrop. 47:406-422.: Dental condition of two tribes of Taiwan aborigines-Ami and Atayal. Am. 1966. K. 22:466-467. L. 3. Eur . Supp. has apparently resulted from lower chewing stress required by a soft dietary consistency.. VI!. 8. Ser. C. J. 1. L.1977. Kargar. 45: 172-207. Suensk . 10. Williams. J. 18. C. 80-93. and muscle function. B. 14. Lombardi.: Eskimo and Indian field studies in Alaska and Canada. J. 13. 1948. M. The Angle Orthodontist . Angle Orthod. a Melanesian group on Mailaito. Kraus.. Basel. J. 1972. W. P.: Malocclusion in the modern Alaskan Eskimo. S. E.1936.present convincing genetic arguments against this explanation. 1977. W. R.. Replication of these experiments with a laboratory animal more closely related to man in terms of both biology and masticatory system is seen as a vital future need. 15. 162. Mediolateral maxillary growth seems dependent upon the muscular stimulation provided by rough elements in the diet. Wood. L. 14:34. 1Dent. I'. 1951. Oral Bioi. J. 12. C.C. A. Dent. D.: Hered· ity and the craniofacial complex. The amount of maxillary arch narrowing and collapse can be predicted by the amount of time the animals were chewing on hard food. Goose. 47:811815. 2. No. W. The ora! status of the Xavantes of Simoes Lopes. 1943. 56:117-126. 17. Assoc. Wise. 1976.: The occlusion of the Australian aborigine. Tand. Am.: The face in profile. II. H. D. Clinch. and Bailit. 19. H. Assoc. Phys. and Wong. and Thilander.. Arch. L.: Tooth-Size and Occlusion in Twins. A. Waugh. 1959. A iii. Res.: Bone. Lundstrom.: Malocclusion and civilization.: Influence of the diet on the jaws and the face of the American Eskimo.
Am. Vargervik. J. Tonge. in press. Am. 1956. B.: Variability in wild and inbred mammalian populations.. R. 1965.: Biometrics of crowding and spacing of teeth in the mandible. and HermannStutzmann. 43:412-421. 1968. L. P. H.: Research and malocclusion. 47:6577. J.: Variation in the secular changes in the teeth and dental arch. Anthrop. F.. 1954. 6:356357. Evolution 19:214-233. Strnad. 1973. A. sex differences and population comparisons. Weijs. 1938. Am. 50. 42:848-851.: Normal development of the jaws and teeth in pigs. Nance. J . R. M. J. J. 27. 31. J. Chung. Master's thesis. C. 64: 578-606.. 37. R. Phys. R. H. Curro Anthrop. Oppenheimer.. 29. 47:661-673. The effects of rehabilitation on the teeth and jaws of pigs. J. K.: Electromyography and mechanics of mastication in the albino rat. A. 1977. M. 43. Clin. 45. Runck. jaws. J. 1973.... S. Lavelle. 19: 14-34. 32. J. D.. 38. L.: Variability in characters undergoing rapid evolution. B. Green. R. 59:1-IR. 34.. W. A. 1972. Orthod. Orthod. Charlier. R. A. and Dantuma. Dent.. 21. 73:895-928. M. 1. 22:257-268. an analysis of Microtus molars. ]. 1975. G. and McCance. ]. Orthod. Owens. and Weinstein. Papua. 1969.. Watt. L. 46. 1965. 5:419-421. 51. A III. G. S. J. 1966. Dent.: The cause and effect of mouthbreathing as related to malocclusion. Independent genetic determinants. L. A. 1973. Am. Vol. 47. J. J. 1'. Orthod. Harvold. 25. 48. and Reed. Methods. L. C. 1. C. 12:77-88. P. Guthrie. Tonge. Litton. 41. S. R. C. 30.: Variation in dental occlusion and arches among Melanesians of Bougainville Island. Alii.. and Hylander. 51 No. and Kau. Lavelle. S. Curro Anthrop.. Orthod. 1951. Am. 23. Niswander. Moore. H. II. Burstonc. 18. 63:494-508.. and Cox. Isaacson... J. L. R.: Cenctic and epidemiologic studies of oral characteristics in Hawaii's schoolchildren. 24. 36. Phvs.: Effects of dietary consistency on maxillary arch breadth in macaques. Rhinology XVI:191-196. and Corruccini. 16:503-512. Am. and BaiIit. 28: 12·35. K.: Genetics of common dental disorders. 1973. 1. 28. D. Bader. J.. J. C.. Mourrees. M. C. W.: Research related to malocclusion. J.. W. J. A. Res. 1981 .. Phys. J. 1966. January.: Principal factors controlling development of the mandible and maxilla. New Guinea.. McCance. Gam. 44. Smith. Moorrees. R. Orthod. E. Angle Orthod. Florida Acad. E. 146: 123-131. 11. and nailit. Am. and Shapiro. W. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in different occlusal categories. 61:29-37. C.. 1976. M. P. 33. K. Nutr. 115: 1-22. R. C.. 1975. T. Niswander.. Orthod. W. University of Adelaide.: Severe undernutrition in growing and adult animals. Dent. Zool. H. Am. R. Hiniker.' 1. Schultz. J. 1978. W. S. and McCance.. age changes. 1970. Morph. 15. 1965. Craven. 1958. 22. J.: A twin study of dental dimensions.. M. 1961. C. Yu. 1965. W. Am. and Davis. D.: Effects of mandibular hyperpropulsion on the prechondroblast ic zone of young rat condyle.: Severe undernutrition in growing and adult animals.: The effects of the physical consistency of food on the growth and development of the mandible and maxilla of the rat. 35. J. 23: 471-495. 44:397412. H. Malocclusion. S.. Development 69 26. Hixon. Beecher. [rosthet. Anthrop. 39. H. 19: 197-206. L. II. Am. 24:171. J.. 49. and teeth of pigs.: A radiographic cephalometric study of the central Australian Aborigine. 1971. 1978. S..: A genetic study of class III malocclusion. Bilben. and Williams. Hum. Petrovic. Genet. Thoma. Brown. G. 47: 195·208.: Primate experiments on oral sensation and dental malocclusions. Res. 55:71-74. R. 19:361-372.: Problems and methods in research on the genetics of dental occlusion. Ackerman. V. Angle Orthod. C.. S. 58:565-577.. Orthod.: Tool use and crowded teeth in Australopithecinae. J. Anat.. F. 146:1-34. Morph. B. 1966. and Chierici. R. J.. R. L. C. and Tonge. 42. Potter. Orth od. The mouth. Bouvier. 1. Dent. J. Br. and Ramsfjord. C. J. Barber. H.: Masticatory function and skull growth. n. Sci.: Anterior displacement of the mandible in adult rhesus monkeys. and the delay and malocclusions produced by calorie deficiencies. in press. Smith. J.J. J. J. Nutr. D.-P.: Reply. Christiansen. D. Angle Orthod. McNamara. 1971.: Neuromuscular and skeletal adaptations to altered function in the orofacial region. N.: Effects of bone strain on cortical bone structure in macaques.: Craniofacial variation in a central Australian tribe. Am. Anthrop..Diet Consistency jOcclusal 20. Br. Am. J. ]. J. A. 1963. E.: Effects of the ph ysical consistency of the diet on the condylar growth of the rat mandible. 40.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.