MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Landmark‐based 3D Morphometrics of the Developing Human Dentition in the Middle Trimester

2019· article· en· W3173318803 on OpenAlexaff
Joy M. Richman, Doris Pham, Anu Korada, Virginia M. Diewert, Siddharth R. Vora

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMolarAnatomyDental follicleMesenchymeDentitionDentistryBiologyTooth eruptionMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Bone remodelingOrthodonticsMedicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human primary tooth formation begins around 6 weeks in utero and by the time a baby is born, all 20 teeth have mineralized and are embedded in the jaw bone. Our study is addressing the period during which tooth morphogenesis and jaw development are taking place, the middle trimester. The tooth‐bone relationship involves inductive interactions between the condensed mesenchyme of the dental follicle surrounding the tooth germs and the non‐dental mesenchyme of the jaws. As teeth pass through bud, cap and bell stages, intramembranous bone is being deposited by osteoblasts but the patterning of the bone in relation to the teeth is not well understood. From studies in mouse, the tooth follicle is thought to induce bone and in turn the bone is thought to restrict tooth organ growth. Mouse molars are completely encased in bone as soon as the crown is completed. However in humans the bone surrounding tooth organs is fenestrated. The buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar (m1) and canine (c) are not covered by bone whereas the incisors (lateral incisor – i2, central incisor – i1) are surrounded by bone on buccal, lingual, gingival, mesial and distal. Therefore we wondered whether crypt growth is isometric or allometric and whether there were differences between the tooth morphotypes. To answer this question, we scanned 25 intact fetal jaws with microCT from a collection of human specimens maintained at UBC. Scans were imported into Amira (Thermo‐Fisher) and used for segmentation or landmark placement. Landmarks were placed in a consistent manner on all surfaces of the bony tooth crypt (Fig. B,D) and then exported to MorphoJ for morphological analyses (Fig. A,C). In addition segmented tooth volumes and linear dimensions were measured in Amira. The principal component and canonical variate analysis revealed that there are significant shape differences in the crypts between 12–14 weeks and 17–19 weeks. The intermediate period 15–16 weeks was not significantly different than the early or later timeframes. These trends matched segmented volumetric data for the tooth germs and mandible. Shifts in specific landmarks particularly the buccal landmarks adjacent to m1 and c were observed between the early and late period which is consistent with the lack of constraint by bone on those surfaces (Fig. A). Allometric growth in the occlusal gingival direction was also observed with increased depth to the crypts for all teeth over the developmental period (Fig. C). Some of these changes are consistent with reconstruction data from others showing relatively greater bone resorption on the internal surfaces of the crypt. Our data suggests that the all the tooth germs are interacting with the bone that will later surround the roots. The prominent buccal bulges of m1, plus the formation of the mental foramen on the buccal side of the m1 crypt, may require spatially restricted tissue interactions Support or Funding Information Funded by the Faculty of Dentistry, UBC; Human ethics approval number H08‐0257 This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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