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
This movement resulted in short-term periodontal traumas which abated when The Angle Orthodontist . Using mature animals and a splint on the anterior teeth to force mandibular protrusion. older animals responded with tooth movements to adjust to the new occlusal alignments. (2) placing devices in the mouth to effect alterations in mastication. These are usually designed to force protrusion of the mandible 1.0 mm in order to achieve molar occlusion. The rapid increase in the incidence of malocclusion (often within one generation) gives cause to look beyond genetic explanations such as relaxed selection pressures. A cornman habit in childhood. Based on the available anthropological and experimental evidence. Experimen Is in effects of function Apart from radical surgery. (3) lengthened condylar neck. racial outcrossing. affect the developing masticatory apparatus and create variations in the occlusal phenotype. especially the physical consistency of the diet. the experimental attempts to induce developmental change in the mammalian masticatory apparatus have used four methods': (I) forcing mouth breathing in animals. Mouth breathing Mouth breathing has been implicated experimentally (using macaques) in the development of open bite and or an abnormally narrow maxillary dental arch.> Disrupted occlusion The prevalence of an occlusion that varies from the ideal is not the norm among mammals. specifically: (1) some posterior bone deposition. (2) bone resorption of the anterior edges of the glenoid fossa. inbreeding. attributed to altered muscle tension as the mandible is held slightly depressed during respiration. 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. Mandibular protrusion in young animals resulted in changes in the temporomandibular joint. abnormally-directed muscle tension. mouth breathing is probably a factor in the development of human malocclusions. (3) restricting animals to calorie-deprivation diets. While the younger. Similar differences were also found in soft-diet rats.vSuch effects are common in humans. Hiniker and RamsIjord= also found dentitional changes as teeth were forced to move to maintain occlusal relationships. 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. 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. 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. The maxillae of these animals showed reduced vertical and prognathic growth. growing animals responded to this stress by skeletal adaptations.5-2. 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.
maintaining them for one year on a severe calorie-deficient diet. They . the growing skeletal system adjusts. In all studies. they do not create conditions likely to be encountered by the developing human masticatory system. While calorie deprivation is undoubtedly a factor to consider in severely undernourished people. More recently. Even buccolingual thickness of the mandible. the dentition migrates to accommodate." and Henrikson. which resist bite (especially incisal) reaction force. Rehabilitation was only partiall y successful. (5) had smaller masseter and temporalis muscles. Watt and Williams. The condyles. When compared to the harddiet rats.29 McCance. Sagne and Thilander. especially in the mandible. there is no evidence to correlate this deficiency with the occlusal problems found in so many urbanized peoples of the western world." Barber. where toothfood-tooth contact takes place. Green. (3) had mandibles that were smaller. and COX. The smaller masticatory muscles in soft-diet animals were almost certainly a result of lower work requirement in mastication. was less in the soft-diet animals. Dietary consistency Although many workers have commented on the probable influence of the hardness or softness of the diet on the developing masticatory system. The smaller and less-active muscles applied less stress to the bones. 1981 Development 63 four studies have examined this idea experimentally. which responded with less deposition and growth. In young animals. were smaller. in older animals. 51 No. and (2) "greater delay in the development and growth of the jaws. which is essential to resist transverse bending. These studies demonstrate that forced realignments of occlusal relationships and mandibular movements lead to responses by the most flexible elements of the masticatory apparatus. before attempting to "rehabilitate" some with proper foods. While these experiments are important in assessing the response of the masticatory system to unusual mechanical stress. was less.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. with condyles smaller and radiographically less dense. where muscle force is transmitted to the mandible. Attachment areas for the jawclosing muscles. The authors found that their regime resulted in: (I) delayed dental development and eruption. although with no significant differences in shape. the animals were maintained for approximately four months. Wear of the molar.28. 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.Diet Consistency jOcclusal the teeth adapted and once again occluded adequately. Beecher and Corruccini35 examined a small population of rhesus macaques which had spent a short period during adolescence on contrasting hard/soft diets. All mandibular structures related to chewing were affected by diet hardness. Vol."29 The consequences were tooth crowding and abnormal tooth-tooth contacts. (2) exhibited no molar wear. 1 January. and (6) had skulls consistently smaller in mass and in linear dimensions. the soft-diet animals: (I) were slightly smaller in body mass. (4) had less width of the maxillary dental arch. were smaller.32 Moore. Tonge and McCance.
4. or whether no differences should be expected until a threshold in dietary consistency difference was reached. Body mass. MATERIALS AND METHODS The experimental animals were Sprague-Dawley rats. It was to fill these gaps in the experimental record that the following study was carried out. acquired at 21 days of age. We found the lab chow to be crumbly. Further. Group II I was fed the soft diet six days. Fresh mass of the entire masseter. Mandibular length. 3. Croup 11 was fed a gruel-like porridge consisting of ground chow moistened with water. Maxillary arch length. Projection of indiThe Angle Orthodontist found significant narrowing of the maxillary arch with no lessening in length in the soft-diet monkeys. 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. evenly divided between males and females. 5. Maxillary arch breadth across buccal points of ?vII.ors (also known as directional cosines or latent vectors) summarize the multiple interplay among variables. This technique. 6. finds the major axes of the between-variable correlation matrix.he correlations among the several variables. This indicates that the "hard" diet was minimally harder . easily breaking down into small granules. Anteroposterior length of condylar articular surface. The eigenvect. 'While a number of measurements have been taken from animals in dietary consistency experiments. the heads were randomly numbered so that the measurer would not be aware of their group membership. The second axis is the axis perpendicular to the first that subsumes the largest possible amount of residual variance. 2. incisor to Ml. 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. Measurements Crable I) were taken as follows: 1. incisor to distal edge of last molar. with only two groups. resulting in a lj uantum change in the morphology of the masticatory system.64 Beecher and Corruccini than the gruel. it could not be determined whether the masticatory system responded in direct proportion to differences in dietary consistency. A principal components analysis was performed on the data in order to discover t. and so on. hard and soft diet. Least-squares theory is used to rotate orthogonal axes to a position where the major axis subsumes a maximized amount of the total variance. After sacrifice. engendering only subtle differences in bite force. related to factor analysis. the same length of time used in previous experiments of this type. Ninety animals were divided into three groups: Group I was fed pelletted rat chow (Purina Formulab). Animals were also examined for visible differences in tooth alignments and attritional differences between the three groups. We have no way of knowing the consistency of rat diets used in earlier experiments of this type. The three populations were maintained on their respective diets for four months. with dry pellets provided every seventh day only.
1 January. RESULTS Development 65 more variable than Group I in the maxillary arch measurements. Vol. a result attributable to the small differences in dietary consistency. In particular.. but not significantly so.31 39. The population reared on an intermittently hard diet (Group III) is generally intermediate in the size of structures.91 3.40) ( 0..d. Group III is slightly A much more obvious feature of difference is manifested in the COl'relation structure between measurements within samples. All correlations are higher in the animals that had more masticatory resistance.17) ( 0.) ~:I. Mandibular Length (mm) (mm) . the second axis is largest among the softdiet animals.f. significant < . Table 2 indicates the pairwise correlations in the hard and soft diet groups (I and II).43 43.21' 1.44 at p (0. but usually closer to Group I.41) (12. Group III is intermediate in standard deviation.) 24.. Condyle Length Body weight (gm) .~6) (0.48) Soft Mean (s.26 38.20) ( 0.92 3. 1981 .18 lAO Intermittent Mean (s.45 8. Maxillary Breadth (mm) ... Inversely related to this.05.. Again. 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.28) (or Measured Traits F 0. this measurement alone shows a differentiation that is too large (relative to within-sample variation) to be reasonably ascribed to chance. signifying that all structures are more tightly integrated in their growth and covariation. Dispersion.7 I 9. which is much more integrated with growth in the condyle and upper arch breadth in hard-diet than in soft-diet animals.58) ( 0.50) (0. and functional interpretation of the morphological integration among variables.56 ( 1.Diet Consistency jOcclusal vidual cases onto the principal component axes allows interrpretation of multivariate variabilitv within samples.00 9. indicating a greater range of sizes..39 8..89 3.36) (9. Thus the residual from Mean. The comparison of correlation structure can be more easily accomplished through examination of the principal components of the correlation matrix.d.. and the differences are often significant.79 9..88) (0. • 3-sample TABLE I and Significance of Difference Hard Mean (s.65) ( 0. The strongest difference is in the growth relation of the masseter muscle. Table 3 lists key paramo eters of this analysis.38) ( 0.64 8.46) ( 0. Masseter weight (gm) .40) om AoV with 2 and 87 d.57 4. 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.39) (11.43 ( 1.01) lAO ( 0.d. Variable Maxillary Length (mm) . For instance. 51 No. The major (coordinated growth) axis is largest in the hard-diet sample. the maxillary breadth is markedly increased in the hard-diet reared animals (Group I). The gross differences in the growth of most structures are not very marked.72 1. Group I is more variable than Group II in every measurement.) 23.38 2. although more similar to the soft group.32) (0.03 1.
... Only in the 19th and 20th centuries (il apIJcars) has food become so processed tha t for practical purposes.19. Maxillary Breadth . TABLE 2 Product-moment Correlations Among Variables Within the Soft (lower triangular half of matrix) and Hard (upper triangular half) Dietary Max.. Perhaps a decrease in buffering among the growing components is the first step in their decrease in size. The Angle Orthodontist .. IMaxillary Length .74 0.. condyle length. most chewing stress has been removed and little bite force is now called into play in the jaws of the growing child...66 Beecher and Corruccini crease in size of the structures that seems to follow with a stronger dietary differentiation. We noticed no displaced or rotated teeth in any of the animals.89 0. In all respects.72 Condo 0.93· 0.. 0. Masseter weight tends to be inversely correlated with maxillary breadth and condyle length on the second axis in soft animals. and masseter weight.. Condyle length alone shows a notable residual on the second axis in Group I and III. Mandibular Length .. Masseter weight .. a decrease in correlation of masticatory structures is more noteworthy than de- = '.."] ""hile they noted easily observable differences in attrition between soft and hard diet groups.85 Groups Mussel. the intermittent-harddiet group (III) is intermediate when compared with Groups I and 11 but more similar to the hard-diet sample.H3 0.....37.79· 0.60 0. which is significantly greater than expected by random error at P 2.. • Significantly larger Max.83· 0.05... This phenomenon has also been noted in characters that are diminishing in size through natural selection...... Body weight . we could find none. .. No caries were observed by us in any animals..39 diet sample at p :c . at the stage of growrh. the F-ratio of variation on axis two (dispersion from axis one) between soft and hard samples is 2. The correlations of variables with the axes show that the breakdown in growth coordination in soft-diet animals is especially marked in maxillary breadth. Ii Mand. ~ e: 0.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..... . 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. Thus..5%.66 Body 0..71 Soft diet ~ r in hard < .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.. 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 ...91· 0.54 0.79· 0..differentiation represented by this difference in dietary consistency.55 0..78 0.L 0.....
16 -0.23 0. prenatal insult. experimental evidence which might weight such factors is absent.42-45 The growth independence of mandible and maxilla in humans has been frequently noted. oral habits. Though the chewing explanation is most predictive of observed occlusal differences in the rats.w Carrr" lists breakdown of synchronous growth in lower and upper jaws as a possible cause of malocclusion. follows different rates and peaks at different ages in the maxilla and mandible.06 -0. 1981 ." also stress the importance of high correlation between tooth and arch size to the development of good occlusion.51 0.57 -0. disturbance of synchronous development in separately growing parts. hormonal intervention. the mandible may depend on muscular function to grow to average size. as shown by the tendency of some indi- Development 67 viduals with anodontia to have average-size mandibles. and independence of tooth formation.w Moorrees and Reed.e-v Lower correlation between upper and lower teeth in maloccluded individuals (as compared with normal) has been noted by Lavelle.41•42 Some of these may be of minimal or no importance.80 One Principal Component Hard Two growth) Intermittent 4.68 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. endocrine disturbance. it clearly is not favored by many orthodontists as an explanation of the rising rate of occlusal variation in humans.Diet Consistency/Occlusal A number of other environmental factors have been suggested as influences on developing occlusion. In particular.17 (69) 0.18 -0.68 0.90 0.94 0.90 0.08 -0.67 (78) 0. especially of anterior teeth. since cases of anodontia show restricted growth while cases with muscular paralysis may develop normally.73 -0.14 0. Thus.93 0. premature deciduous tooth loss. trauma.77 0.08 0. Potter et alY demonstrate that upper and lower dental arches are under very different sorts of genetic control. 1 January.59 -0.12 0. including mouth breathing.89 0.82 0.06 -0.96 0.97 0. but does not give the source of the growth-correlation breakdown.89 0.29 0.95 4.:" Maxillary growth may be under closer genetic programming. 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. with the maxillary teeth being more conservative and controlled by a fewer number of genes.60 (10) -0.96 (83) 0. posture. Tooth spacing and crowding.41 -0.50 (8) -0.95 (variation in growth) Soft Intermittent 0.79 (13) -0. 51 No.92 0.04 0.80 0. The aging process also yields different results in upper and lower arches.05 -0. Because of its widespread occurrence in western society.10 Vol.91 0.
A iii. C. D. Cotton. Washington. K. C. Res. 1959. Soc. Am. a Melanesian group on Mailaito. S. 5b). 45: 172-207. Eur .. Hunt. Waugh. 14. and continual incisor function in rodents maintains a base level of function regardless of diet that has no parallel in man. 21 :213-220.: An assessment of occlusion of youths 12·17 years. 47:811815. 17:231-233. The Angle Orthodontist . L. Solomon Islands. No. J. Supp. previously noted in certain groups of maloccluded humans and attributed to racial admixture. Res. Wise.C. R. 7. E. Clinch.: Eskimo and Indian field studies in Alaska and Canada. Ortluul. 1. 1948. 4. W. Henrikson. Goose. 1948. J. Waugh.°o and Lombardi and Bailit. Orthod. 22:466-467. Dent.1977. J. 5. 1943. D. Assoc. Sagne. 23:417-437. A. 19.: Studies in the dietaries of contemporary primitive peoples. A.-A.: Malocclusion and civilization.: The occlusion of the Australian aborigine. W. 10. Calci].. 16. 15. and Frei. D.: Anglo-Saxon and modern British teeth. II. Oral Bioi. 1951. Tand. J. L. In this animal population the disassociation in size of occlusal features during their growth. A. 17.: Further studies on the Xavantc Indians. USPHS. Trans. J. 18. V. Dent. Dent. 1Dent. Price. teeth. Lundstrom. Am. Alii.: Dental condition of two tribes of Taiwan aborigines-Ami and Atayal. Lavelle. 1951. J. Williams. Orthod. 80-93. 1947.: Maxillary dental arch width in Chinese living in Liverpool. H. 13. I'. Orthod. Periodont . 1977. VI!. J.: The Downs analysis applied to three ethnic groups. Tiss. and Bailit. Dent.: Mal· occlusion in the Kwaio.. Lu. J. S. and Harvey. W. CONCLUSION We believe our results suggest future directions for fruitful research based on the following observations. Angle Orthod. has apparently resulted from lower chewing stress required by a soft dietary consistency. 1968. Kargar. 1972. Vital and Health Statistics. 36:385.: Tooth-Size and Occlusion in Twins. The amount of maxillary arch narrowing and collapse can be predicted by the amount of time the animals were chewing on hard food. 24:1640· 1647. H. and muscle function.: Investigations concerning the dentitions of the Eskimos of Canada's Eastern Arctic. Am. M.: The face in profile. IG:355-356. 11. Am. and Wong. Assoc. Chung et al. 1937. Basel. 1937. A. 40 (Suppl. and Thilander.: Dental observations among the Eskimos. 14:34. Am.: Malocclusion in the modern Alaskan Eskimo. 162. J.: Hered· ity and the craniofacial complex. B. Suensk . P.. R. Klatsky. 8. Mediolateral maxillary growth seems dependent upon the muscular stimulation provided by rough elements in the diet. 1977. W. E. Am. W. 1972. B. Niswander. Genet. Phys. The prevailing explanation for such lowering of growth correspondence has been the effect of racial admixture between populations.: Bone. Dent. 6. 12. Assoc. Res. Takano. 56:117-126. Bjork. J.. Lombardi... Wood.present convincing genetic arguments against this explanation. B. 9. 1976. Kelly. Kraus. 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. M.68 Beecher and Corruccini REFERENCES occlusion in humans. 60:344354.: Influence of the diet on the jaws and the face of the American Eskimo. The unfused mandibular symphysis in the rat alters force distribution. C. 19:543-553. L. 3.1936. Ser. 2.. J. 1966. 47:406-422. H. 36:283·294. L. 1961. Arch. the inheritance of different-sized parts that must occlude is attributed to the independent segregation of disharmonious genes from disparate ancestors.v-se Thus. Res. M. J. ~ 1. L. The ora! status of the Xavantes of Simoes Lopes. Anthrop. lium.
21. 28: 12·35. and Williams. 1.. P.: Variability in wild and inbred mammalian populations. Phvs. Anthrop.. 1. J. Niswander. J. Am. and Corruccini. and Tonge. 39. Petrovic. sex differences and population comparisons... Orthod. M. K. Am. 1973. 24:171. 1978. Litton. Moorrees. T. Alii. C.. Anthrop. C. McCance. 1958. 115: 1-22. H. ]. 1975. Beecher. Hum. R. 22:257-268. D. 19: 197-206. 46. 146:1-34. Phys. and Ramsfjord. Vargervik. 15. Craven. 1954. J. 1973. 35. J. and teeth of pigs. 1965. M. E. W. 37. Moore. R.. Vol.: Severe undernutrition in growing and adult animals. 146: 123-131. Papua.-P. Rhinology XVI:191-196. J. 1971. J.: Research and malocclusion. R. G.. Anat. Angle Orthod. 5:419-421.Diet Consistency jOcclusal 20. Genet. University of Adelaide. 1966. 1956. E. Nutr.. W.: Effects of mandibular hyperpropulsion on the prechondroblast ic zone of young rat condyle. Harvold. Am. 19:361-372. 58:565-577.: Normal development of the jaws and teeth in pigs. and McCance. Nutr.: Principal factors controlling development of the mandible and maxilla. J. Dent. Orthod. 1'. Brown. Master's thesis. 22. Development 69 26. J. 51. J.: Research related to malocclusion. Barber. 73:895-928. 1951. 1. J. in press. 51 No. Orthod. S. R. K. J.: Neuromuscular and skeletal adaptations to altered function in the orofacial region. J.: The cause and effect of mouthbreathing as related to malocclusion. Potter. S. Smith. D. L. Chung.. R. 47:661-673. 16:503-512. Oppenheimer.: Anterior displacement of the mandible in adult rhesus monkeys. 27. E. J. Orthod. Watt. G. C. J . Am. W. and nailit. Curro Anthrop.. Orthod. Strnad.: Genetics of common dental disorders. 6:356357. and Chierici. Guthrie. Florida Acad. and Cox. Am. 42:848-851. and Dantuma... age changes. J. G. C. C. ]. Angle Orthod. 1976.: Reply. Br. 43. L. C. jaws. Tonge. January. L. 1973. 55:71-74. Orth od. K.: Effects of dietary consistency on maxillary arch breadth in macaques. Bouvier.: Cenctic and epidemiologic studies of oral characteristics in Hawaii's schoolchildren. 1968. 1966. Schultz. H. J.: Effects of bone strain on cortical bone structure in macaques. J. 1938. 44:397412. 64: 578-606. Tonge. 48. 43:412-421. 63:494-508. C. R. Ackerman. Morph. 1965. Orthod. P. 1965. 1971. 31.. H. J. Evolution 19:214-233. 59:1-IR. L. S.: Tool use and crowded teeth in Australopithecinae. R. The mouth. Am. R. Am. Phys. Maxillary and mandibular tooth size in different racial groups and in different occlusal categories. McNamara. 23. 1975. Mourrees. and McCance. L. 34. D.: Variation in the secular changes in the teeth and dental arch.. Angle Orthod. J. H. A. J. A. 24. J. The effects of rehabilitation on the teeth and jaws of pigs... Zool. Burstonc. M. 47:6577. W. Thoma. Am. Owens. F.. Yu. M. S. 1977. H. Dent.. and HermannStutzmann.: Variability in characters undergoing rapid evolution. Isaacson... J. 47: 195·208. Am. Am. Res. [rosthet. 1970. S. A. 1973. Dent. and the delay and malocclusions produced by calorie deficiencies. II. C. J. 1978. Clin. J. Am. 18. and Weinstein. Smith. Sci. Res. B. J. Bilben. W. 11. D. D.: Electromyography and mechanics of mastication in the albino rat. 61:29-37. Lavelle. A.: A radiographic cephalometric study of the central Australian Aborigine.: Effects of the ph ysical consistency of the diet on the condylar growth of the rat mandible. 32.. 36. 50. A III.: Primate experiments on oral sensation and dental malocclusions. L. Gam.: Craniofacial variation in a central Australian tribe. H. Morph. C.: Problems and methods in research on the genetics of dental occlusion. and Kau. 38. 1961. A. an analysis of Microtus molars. H. Independent genetic determinants. 19: 14-34. R. Bader.: Variation in dental occlusion and arches among Melanesians of Bougainville Island. 25.. Anthrop. Curro Anthrop. A.. Green. 44. 42. L.. Malocclusion. Am..J. Niswander. P.: A genetic study of class III malocclusion. and Shapiro. J. B. 28.: The effects of the physical consistency of food on the growth and development of the mandible and maxilla of the rat. 41. J. R. W. Lavelle. 1972. Br.. 47. and BaiIit. Hiniker. R. S. II. C. 45. R. J. n.. F.. Hixon. 12:77-88.: A twin study of dental dimensions.. J. 33. J.. Weijs. and Davis. A. C. 1965. 40. in press. 1981 .: Masticatory function and skull growth.. S. L. Orthod. and Reed. and Hylander. ].. 1963. 23: 471-495. M. Nance.. M.. Dent. 1. N. Methods. Christiansen. 30. New Guinea. R. V. Orthod. Charlier. 1966. 1969. R.: Biometrics of crowding and spacing of teeth in the mandible. B. 49. W. J. S.' 1.: Severe undernutrition in growing and adult animals. C. 29. Runck.
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 reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.