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
inbreeding.0 mm in order to achieve molar occlusion. especially the physical consistency of the diet. While the younger. These are usually designed to force protrusion of the mandible 1. (2) bone resorption of the anterior edges of the glenoid fossa. mouth breathing is probably a factor in the development of human malocclusions. specifically: (1) some posterior bone deposition.5-2.vSuch effects are common in humans.> Disrupted occlusion The prevalence of an occlusion that varies from the ideal is not the norm among mammals. and (4) varying the consistency of the diet from hard to soft. (2) placing devices in the mouth to effect alterations in mastication. abnormally-directed muscle tension. This movement resulted in short-term periodontal traumas which abated when The Angle Orthodontist . A cornman habit in childhood. Similar differences were also found in soft-diet rats.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. attributed to altered muscle tension as the mandible is held slightly depressed during respiration. The rapid increase in the incidence of malocclusion (often within one generation) gives cause to look beyond genetic explanations such as relaxed selection pressures. older animals responded with tooth movements to adjust to the new occlusal alignments. Experimen Is in effects of function Apart from radical surgery. Mandibular protrusion in young animals resulted in changes in the temporomandibular joint. we believe that environmental factors.62 Beecher and Corruccini probably due to a reduction in muscle use rather than increased. or accumulation of genetic mutations. (3) restricting animals to calorie-deprivation diets. affect the developing masticatory apparatus and create variations in the occlusal phenotype. The maxillae of these animals showed reduced vertical and prognathic growth. 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. racial outcrossing. Mouth breathing Mouth breathing has been implicated experimentally (using macaques) in the development of open bite and or an abnormally narrow maxillary dental arch. 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. the experimental attempts to induce developmental change in the mammalian masticatory apparatus have used four methods': (I) forcing mouth breathing in animals. 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. Hiniker and RamsIjord= also found dentitional changes as teeth were forced to move to maintain occlusal relationships. Using mature animals and a splint on the anterior teeth to force mandibular protrusion. growing animals responded to this stress by skeletal adaptations. Based on the available anthropological and experimental evidence. (3) lengthened condylar neck.
Rehabilitation was only partiall y successful." Barber. In young animals. before attempting to "rehabilitate" some with proper foods. especially in the mandible. was less in the soft-diet animals. were smaller. The authors found that their regime resulted in: (I) delayed dental development and eruption. (2) exhibited no molar wear. 51 No. in older animals. which resist bite (especially incisal) reaction force. were smaller." and Henrikson. they do not create conditions likely to be encountered by the developing human masticatory system. which responded with less deposition and growth. (4) had less width of the maxillary dental arch. Nutrition Experiments concerning the contribution of nutrition to normal occlusal development have taken the form of calorie deprivation of pigs. maintaining them for one year on a severe calorie-deficient diet. While calorie deprivation is undoubtedly a factor to consider in severely undernourished people. the dentition migrates to accommodate. Vol. They . there is no evidence to correlate this deficiency with the occlusal problems found in so many urbanized peoples of the western world. Dietary consistency Although many workers have commented on the probable influence of the hardness or softness of the diet on the developing masticatory system. (5) had smaller masseter and temporalis muscles. 1 January. which is essential to resist transverse bending. with condyles smaller and radiographically less dense. where muscle force is transmitted to the mandible. Beecher and Corruccini35 examined a small population of rhesus macaques which had spent a short period during adolescence on contrasting hard/soft diets. While these experiments are important in assessing the response of the masticatory system to unusual mechanical stress. Sagne and Thilander.Diet Consistency jOcclusal the teeth adapted and once again occluded adequately. Green. Owens and Tonge= used weanling animals. and (6) had skulls consistently smaller in mass and in linear dimensions. and COX. although with no significant differences in shape. When compared to the harddiet rats. The condyles. 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. 1981 Development 63 four studies have examined this idea experimentally. Tonge and McCance. All mandibular structures related to chewing were affected by diet hardness. the growing skeletal system adjusts."29 The consequences were tooth crowding and abnormal tooth-tooth contacts.28. Even buccolingual thickness of the mandible. and (2) "greater delay in the development and growth of the jaws. In all studies. where toothfood-tooth contact takes place. The smaller and less-active muscles applied less stress to the bones. Attachment areas for the jawclosing muscles. the animals were maintained for approximately four months. (3) had mandibles that were smaller.32 Moore. More recently. Wear of the molar. was less. the soft-diet animals: (I) were slightly smaller in body mass.29 McCance. Watt and Williams.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.
5. Measurements Crable I) were taken as follows: 1. with dry pellets provided every seventh day only. Body mass. Projection of indiThe Angle Orthodontist found significant narrowing of the maxillary arch with no lessening in length in the soft-diet monkeys. and so on. 2. easily breaking down into small granules. resulting in a lj uantum change in the morphology of the masticatory system. acquired at 21 days of age. Croup 11 was fed a gruel-like porridge consisting of ground chow moistened with water. related to factor analysis. 'While a number of measurements have been taken from animals in dietary consistency experiments. It was to fill these gaps in the experimental record that the following study was carried out. Fresh mass of the entire masseter. 3. or whether no differences should be expected until a threshold in dietary consistency difference was reached. We have no way of knowing the consistency of rat diets used in earlier experiments of this type. incisor to distal edge of last molar. 4. Ninety animals were divided into three groups: Group I was fed pelletted rat chow (Purina Formulab). Maxillary arch breadth across buccal points of ?vII.64 Beecher and Corruccini than the gruel. MATERIALS AND METHODS The experimental animals were Sprague-Dawley rats. it could not be determined whether the masticatory system responded in direct proportion to differences in dietary consistency.ors (also known as directional cosines or latent vectors) summarize the multiple interplay among variables. A principal components analysis was performed on the data in order to discover t. Animals were also examined for visible differences in tooth alignments and attritional differences between the three groups. Group II I was fed the soft diet six days. After sacrifice. with only two groups. Least-squares theory is used to rotate orthogonal axes to a position where the major axis subsumes a maximized amount of the total variance. the same length of time used in previous experiments of this type. incisor to Ml. Further.he correlations among the several variables. Maxillary arch length. This indicates that the "hard" diet was minimally harder . engendering only subtle differences in bite force. The second axis is the axis perpendicular to the first that subsumes the largest possible amount of residual variance. The three populations were maintained on their respective diets for four months. 6. This technique. finds the major axes of the between-variable correlation matrix. 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. We found the lab chow to be crumbly. the heads were randomly numbered so that the measurer would not be aware of their group membership. 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. hard and soft diet. Mandibular length. Anteroposterior length of condylar articular surface. evenly divided between males and females. The eigenvect.
Group III is intermediate in standard deviation. • 3-sample TABLE I and Significance of Difference Hard Mean (s. Masseter weight (gm) .57 4.32) (0..18 lAO Intermittent Mean (s. Vol.26 38.41) (12. this measurement alone shows a differentiation that is too large (relative to within-sample variation) to be reasonably ascribed to chance. and the differences are often significant.40) om AoV with 2 and 87 d.. Maxillary Breadth (mm) .43 ( 1. 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. indicating a greater range of sizes.46) ( 0.00 9.~6) (0. but usually closer to Group I. Inversely related to this... The population reared on an intermittently hard diet (Group III) is generally intermediate in the size of structures.1 January. Table 3 lists key paramo eters of this analysis.89 3.39) (11.39 8.) 23. Again.01) lAO ( 0. Thus the residual from Mean.50) (0. The major (coordinated growth) axis is largest in the hard-diet sample. Table 2 indicates the pairwise correlations in the hard and soft diet groups (I and II).65) ( 0. which is much more integrated with growth in the condyle and upper arch breadth in hard-diet than in soft-diet animals.48) Soft Mean (s. Condyle Length Body weight (gm) .7 I 9. For instance.56 ( 1.03 1. a result attributable to the small differences in dietary consistency. 1981 . and functional interpretation of the morphological integration among variables. but not significantly so.d..) 24. In particular.31 39. Group I is more variable than Group II in every measurement. 51 No.72 1. significant < .) ~:I. Variable Maxillary Length (mm) . All correlations are higher in the animals that had more masticatory resistance. The comparison of correlation structure can be more easily accomplished through examination of the principal components of the correlation matrix. signifying that all structures are more tightly integrated in their growth and covariation...38 2.05..88) (0. the maxillary breadth is markedly increased in the hard-diet reared animals (Group I).38) ( 0.92 3.21' 1. Dispersion.Diet Consistency jOcclusal vidual cases onto the principal component axes allows interrpretation of multivariate variabilitv within samples.45 8.44 at p (0. Group III is slightly A much more obvious feature of difference is manifested in the COl'relation structure between measurements within samples.40) ( 0. The strongest difference is in the growth relation of the masseter muscle.36) (9.91 3.17) ( 0. The gross differences in the growth of most structures are not very marked.64 8.d. although more similar to the soft group. Mandibular Length (mm) (mm) .43 43. 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.d. RESULTS Development 65 more variable than Group I in the maxillary arch measurements...20) ( 0.f.28) (or Measured Traits F 0.79 9. the second axis is largest among the softdiet animals.58) ( 0.
78 0.93· 0.79· 0.91· 0.... and masseter weight...."] ""hile they noted easily observable differences in attrition between soft and hard diet groups. ~ e: 0.5%.89 0... Mandibular Length ..71 Soft diet ~ r in hard < .83· 0.. a decrease in correlation of masticatory structures is more noteworthy than de- = '..differentiation represented by this difference in dietary consistency. Condyle length alone shows a notable residual on the second axis in Group I and III..39 diet sample at p :c .L 0... This phenomenon has also been noted in characters that are diminishing in size through natural selection... Perhaps a decrease in buffering among the growing components is the first step in their decrease in size.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..75· 0.85 Groups Mussel. • Significantly larger Max. most chewing stress has been removed and little bite force is now called into play in the jaws of the growing child..... condyle length.79· 0.....66 Body 0. The Angle Orthodontist .37. . Only in the 19th and 20th centuries (il apIJcars) has food become so processed tha t for practical purposes. Masseter weight .H3 0..54 0. TABLE 2 Product-moment Correlations Among Variables Within the Soft (lower triangular half of matrix) and Hard (upper triangular half) Dietary Max. Maxillary Breadth . IMaxillary Length . .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.60 0. we could find none..... 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. the intermittent-harddiet group (III) is intermediate when compared with Groups I and 11 but more similar to the hard-diet sample.. Masseter weight tends to be inversely correlated with maxillary breadth and condyle length on the second axis in soft animals. Condyle Length .74 0.05.. No caries were observed by us in any animals. 0.. We noticed no displaced or rotated teeth in any of the animals. at the stage of growrh... Ii Mand.. In all respects.. The correlations of variables with the axes show that the breakdown in growth coordination in soft-diet animals is especially marked in maxillary breadth.19..55 0. which is significantly greater than expected by random error at P 2.. 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.72 Condo 0.. the F-ratio of variation on axis two (dispersion from axis one) between soft and hard samples is 2... Thus.66 Beecher and Corruccini crease in size of the structures that seems to follow with a stronger dietary differentiation.. Body weight .
08 -0.06 -0. The aging process also yields different results in upper and lower arches. 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. 51 No.12 0. Though the chewing explanation is most predictive of observed occlusal differences in the rats.91 0. In particular. oral habits.80 0. with the maxillary teeth being more conservative and controlled by a fewer number of genes. trauma.e-v Lower correlation between upper and lower teeth in maloccluded individuals (as compared with normal) has been noted by Lavelle.89 0. experimental evidence which might weight such factors is absent. follows different rates and peaks at different ages in the maxilla and mandible.50 (8) -0.93 0.89 0. Because of its widespread occurrence in western society.06 -0.60 (10) -0.14 0.96 (83) 0. since cases of anodontia show restricted growth while cases with muscular paralysis may develop normally.92 0.Diet Consistency/Occlusal A number of other environmental factors have been suggested as influences on developing occlusion. and independence of tooth formation.51 0.80 One Principal Component Hard Two growth) Intermittent 4.41 -0.10 Vol.59 -0. Potter et alY demonstrate that upper and lower dental arches are under very different sorts of genetic control.68 0.16 -0.29 0. including mouth breathing. 1 January.82 0. prenatal insult. hormonal intervention.77 0. Tooth spacing and crowding. as shown by the tendency of some indi- Development 67 viduals with anodontia to have average-size mandibles. posture.90 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. it clearly is not favored by many orthodontists as an explanation of the rising rate of occlusal variation in humans. disturbance of synchronous development in separately growing parts.95 (variation in growth) Soft Intermittent 0. especially of anterior teeth. the mandible may depend on muscular function to grow to average size." also stress the importance of high correlation between tooth and arch size to the development of good occlusion.97 0.w Moorrees and Reed.05 -0.94 0.w Carrr" lists breakdown of synchronous growth in lower and upper jaws as a possible cause of malocclusion. but does not give the source of the growth-correlation breakdown.79 (13) -0.96 0.23 0. 1981 .:" Maxillary growth may be under closer genetic programming.67 (78) 0.90 0.73 -0. endocrine disturbance.18 -0.42-45 The growth independence of mandible and maxilla in humans has been frequently noted.57 -0. premature deciduous tooth loss.04 0.08 0.95 4. Thus.17 (69) 0.41•42 Some of these may be of minimal or no importance.68 0.
Periodont . 1937. Kelly.: An assessment of occlusion of youths 12·17 years. Henrikson. W. H. 1972. and Harvey. 56:117-126. Alii. Wood. B. 1947.: Influence of the diet on the jaws and the face of the American Eskimo. Tiss. 1948. 60:344354. 17:231-233. The ora! status of the Xavantes of Simoes Lopes. 14:34. teeth. Eur . 1961. 1937. Hunt. J.v-se Thus. Washington.. 2. A. Assoc. 1977. 11. 1Dent. 16. 17. Mediolateral maxillary growth seems dependent upon the muscular stimulation provided by rough elements in the diet. 40 (Suppl. Vital and Health Statistics. Soc. 14. The Angle Orthodontist . Lavelle. Res. Assoc. IG:355-356. 19:543-553. Am. Trans. Orthod. J. No. Oral Bioi.: Mal· occlusion in the Kwaio. Am. M.°o and Lombardi and Bailit. H. 1943. 22:466-467.: Hered· ity and the craniofacial complex. Anthrop. 36:283·294. Dent. CONCLUSION We believe our results suggest future directions for fruitful research based on the following observations. 1951. P. The amount of maxillary arch narrowing and collapse can be predicted by the amount of time the animals were chewing on hard food. Supp. R. 1968.present convincing genetic arguments against this explanation. D. and muscle function. ~ 1. A. W. 1951. J. J. Ortluul. Suensk . 36:385. II. Orthod. 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. Lu. 47:406-422. Solomon Islands. Williams. W. Arch. and Wong.. and Bailit. 162. J. 7. 24:1640· 1647. W. Assoc. Basel.1936. L. J. L. 1977. Res. Kraus. 13.. 21 :213-220. 19. and continual incisor function in rodents maintains a base level of function regardless of diet that has no parallel in man.: Dental observations among the Eskimos. Phys. C. 23:417-437. C.: Investigations concerning the dentitions of the Eskimos of Canada's Eastern Arctic. 6. Klatsky. J. Am. M.: Eskimo and Indian field studies in Alaska and Canada. 15. J. 1972. Chung et al.: Anglo-Saxon and modern British teeth... C. Res. H. Waugh.: Malocclusion and civilization. 18. J. W. S. 1948. The unfused mandibular symphysis in the rat alters force distribution. Waugh.: Bone.: Dental condition of two tribes of Taiwan aborigines-Ami and Atayal. Goose. E. Price. A iii. 1976. Wise. 8. R. a Melanesian group on Mailaito. 3.. L. Genet.: The Downs analysis applied to three ethnic groups. 10. D. Angle Orthod. 4. Orthod. B. 5. Dent. USPHS. the inheritance of different-sized parts that must occlude is attributed to the independent segregation of disharmonious genes from disparate ancestors. A. Dent. VI!. L. A. previously noted in certain groups of maloccluded humans and attributed to racial admixture. M.: Tooth-Size and Occlusion in Twins. Am.. Tand. Cotton. 1. Am. Bjork. Takano. D. 1966.: Further studies on the Xavantc Indians. Sagne. 47:811815. J. 45: 172-207. Lombardi. Ser.-A. K. Niswander.: Maxillary dental arch width in Chinese living in Liverpool. Lundstrom. E.1977. The prevailing explanation for such lowering of growth correspondence has been the effect of racial admixture between populations.: The occlusion of the Australian aborigine. Res. B. S. and Frei.: Malocclusion in the modern Alaskan Eskimo. Am. L. has apparently resulted from lower chewing stress required by a soft dietary consistency.68 Beecher and Corruccini REFERENCES occlusion in humans. Clinch. I'.C. 80-93. lium. J. 1959. Dent. V. 5b). J. 12.: Studies in the dietaries of contemporary primitive peoples.. Kargar.: The face in profile. and Thilander. In this animal population the disassociation in size of occlusal features during their growth. Dent. 9. Calci].
Papua. W. Am. 1938. Am. P. Moore. 36. J. Clin. 1965. R. Lavelle. 1970. 63:494-508. Orthod. C. Zool. R. T. Christiansen. A. Guthrie. 1965. Alii. Br. Am.. Craven.: Variability in characters undergoing rapid evolution. 115: 1-22. sex differences and population comparisons.: Neuromuscular and skeletal adaptations to altered function in the orofacial region. S.. 1'. 58:565-577. L.: The effects of the physical consistency of food on the growth and development of the mandible and maxilla of the rat.. 43:412-421. Niswander. C. A. P. Br. G. and Tonge. J. E. and McCance. an analysis of Microtus molars. 22. Res. and Corruccini.: Effects of dietary consistency on maxillary arch breadth in macaques. ]. L. 5:419-421. Phvs. Petrovic.: Effects of mandibular hyperpropulsion on the prechondroblast ic zone of young rat condyle. R. Am. S. University of Adelaide. F. H. R. Morph.: Craniofacial variation in a central Australian tribe. A III.: Biometrics of crowding and spacing of teeth in the mandible. 1951. Genet. Curro Anthrop. J. L. Orthod. J.. Potter. C. Smith.Diet Consistency jOcclusal 20. 35. R. The mouth. B. J. R. C. 38. ].. 28: 12·35.: A radiographic cephalometric study of the central Australian Aborigine. Oppenheimer. 1981 . Tonge.. 1972.. B. R. Hixon. E. 47: 195·208. K. S. J. 55:71-74. Beecher. 41. L. 146: 123-131. Orthod. Mourrees. J. Am. Charlier. D. W. N.: Tool use and crowded teeth in Australopithecinae. J. M. 28. 59:1-IR. J. Florida Acad. C. II.: Variability in wild and inbred mammalian populations. 37. Gam. January. Vol. 1954. C. Am. Green. Tonge. 34.. Nutr. J .: Severe undernutrition in growing and adult animals. P. J. C.. and Williams. Phys. J. J. J. S. H.J. Sci.: Severe undernutrition in growing and adult animals. W. R.: Variation in dental occlusion and arches among Melanesians of Bougainville Island. and Shapiro. 23. Am. Harvold. Evolution 19:214-233. S. L. J. 1971.' 1. 15. Dent. Ackerman. M. 1973.. Moorrees. H. 1975..: Effects of the ph ysical consistency of the diet on the condylar growth of the rat mandible. Anthrop. H.. Independent genetic determinants. A. Dent. A. and Kau.. Bouvier. J. Rhinology XVI:191-196. 51. Smith. McNamara. Master's thesis. M.: Effects of bone strain on cortical bone structure in macaques. and Reed. 1961. and nailit. 11. R. 1971. Watt. Nance.. Curro Anthrop. D. Lavelle. 22:257-268.: Normal development of the jaws and teeth in pigs. Am. J. J. J.: Cenctic and epidemiologic studies of oral characteristics in Hawaii's schoolchildren. Bader. Isaacson. S.. W. 49. 33. 1973. and teeth of pigs. 1966. 24. in press. Schultz. L. and the delay and malocclusions produced by calorie deficiencies. in press.. 43. Burstonc.. M. 46. and Davis. 19:361-372.: Research related to malocclusion. 1973. V. Anat. 1973. 1977. F. n. Brown. 16:503-512. 1975. 1.: The cause and effect of mouthbreathing as related to malocclusion.. and Weinstein. Anthrop.. Am. 47. 1. J. Orthod. Am. Orthod. Orthod.. D. Morph. J. Runck.. S. A. 1965. 23: 471-495.: Genetics of common dental disorders. Orth od.: A genetic study of class III malocclusion. W. 1965. 1978. Thoma. ].. B. Nutr. 21.: Electromyography and mechanics of mastication in the albino rat.: Anterior displacement of the mandible in adult rhesus monkeys. H.: Masticatory function and skull growth. 50. Phys. 24:171. Hum. and Dantuma. 73:895-928. W. C.: Primate experiments on oral sensation and dental malocclusions. J. J. 30. 64: 578-606. Orthod. The effects of rehabilitation on the teeth and jaws of pigs. J. 44. 47:6577. Weijs. Owens. [rosthet. 42:848-851.. Angle Orthod. S. Dent.. 19: 14-34. 48. R.. K. and McCance. Malocclusion. 27. 1978. 45. 47:661-673. Chung. Orthod. Am. Res. and Ramsfjord.: Research and malocclusion. G. II. jaws. R. M. A. 1966. 39...: Principal factors controlling development of the mandible and maxilla. Strnad. R. and HermannStutzmann. 1.: Problems and methods in research on the genetics of dental occlusion. 6:356357. Vargervik. Yu. Angle Orthod.: A twin study of dental dimensions. C. 32.: Reply.. 1963. 1966. and Hylander. J. E. J. 1956... J. H.: Variation in the secular changes in the teeth and dental arch. H. 1. R. J. A. 146:1-34. D. 61:29-37. Barber. J. Methods. L. 1968. 29. G. Angle Orthod. C. and Cox. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in different occlusal categories. Bilben. and Chierici. J. 44:397412. Dent. Am. Litton. New Guinea. Anthrop. 19: 197-206. C. 51 No. M. 40.. L. 42. K.. 18.. R. W. 25. McCance. C. D.. 1958.-P. J. and BaiIit. age changes. 12:77-88. Niswander. Hiniker. 1976. 31. 1969. Development 69 26.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?