MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human Molar Size Variation: Wisdom Teeth Just Don't Care?

2021· article· en· W3171576157 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julia C. Boughner, Denver Marchiori, Garnet V. Packota

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolarCrown (dentistry)ImpactionDentistryMandibular second molarMedicineRetrospective cohort studyOrthodonticsPermanent teethLinear regressionInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inhibitory cascade model (ICM) is a tenet of mammalian molar morphogenesis that predicts that a larger developing first molar (M1) results in a smaller and later‐forming adjacent second (M2) and third (M3) molar. Recently, we have shown that late‐developing M3s are also at higher risk of impaction, a common dental health concern worldwide. The mechanisms delaying M3 onset time are unclear.Here we tested the hypothesis that M1 crown size predicts M3 developmental timing and M3 eruption, based on a sample of young Western Canadian dental patients. We also tested the extent to which contemporary modern human molars conform to the ICM. We sampled retrospective cone beam computed tomography scans and panoramic radiographs taken for clinical diagnostic purposes of multi‐ethnic patients aged 13‐24 years residing in four Western Canadian municipalities. We studied 99 patients, sampling 327 quadrants from 57 girls and 42 boys, at two distinct times that allowed us to know if an M3 had properly erupted. Using Horos and Xoran i‐Cat software, we scored permanent molar development using a 9‐stage classification after Demirjian's system. We measured mesiodistal lengths of M1, M2 and M3 crowns. In SPSS v.25, we calculated a Generalized Estimating Equation model through a multivariable linear regression to test if M1 crown length (“size”) predicted M3 developmental timing and eruption status. We also tested other variables including jaw type (maxillary; mandibular). Significance was set to p<0.05. Unexpectedly, we identified 13 molar size ratio patterns occurring at different frequencies (e.g., M1>M2>M3 in only 31.6% of cases) that reflected whether molars were located in the maxilla versus the mandible. This pattern diversity included up to four patterns in the same person's mouth. Further, M3 size was predicted not by M1 size (Wald Chi‐Square [Wald X 2 ]=0.701, p=0.40) but by M2/M1 ratio and absolute M2 size (Wald X 2 =14.04, p=0.000). Relative to M1 crown length, if M2 crown length increased by 10%, the adjacent M3 crown lengthened by 7% (±3%), indicating that M2 increases “faster” than M3. Crown length ratios (M3:M1, M2:M1) did not predict M3 impaction (Wald X 2 =0.124, p=0.73) or M3 developmental stage (M2:M1, Wald X 2 =0.228, p=0.63; M3:M1, Wald X 2 =3.253, p=0.07). We conclude that M1 crown length does not predict early versus late M3 development or M3 eruption status. Thus, the ICM does not appear to be useful for predicting M3 impaction risk. Contemporary modern humans present several distinct molar size ratio patterns, indicating that Homo sapiens molar size is subject to oral quadrant‐specific and jaw type‐specific effects beyond inhibition from a developing M1.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicdental development and anomaliesFrench-language works237,207