Comparative microcomputed tomography and histological study of maxillary pneumatization in four species of new world monkeys: The perinatal period

Abstract

In anthropoid primates, it has been hypothesized that the magnitude of maxillary sinus growth is influenced by adjacent dental and soft tissue matrices. Relatively, little comparative evidence exists for the perinatal period when secondary pneumatization is at its earliest stages in some primates. Here, dental and midfacial variables were studied in a perinatal sample of four anthropoid primates, including three callitrichines (Leontopithecus, Saguinus, and Callithrix) and Saimiri boliviensis. In the latter species, the maxillary recess (the ontogenetic precursor to a "true" maxillary sinus) does not undergo secondary pneumatization. Using histological methods and micro-computed tomography, midfacial and dental dimensions and radiographic hydroxyapatite density of tooth cusps were measured. The distribution of osteoclasts and osteoblasts was also documented. Kruskal-Wallis's one-way analysis of variance tests indicates significant (P < 0.05) differences among groups for dental and midfacial measurements. In particular, the posterior maxillary dentition is relatively larger and more mineralized in Saimiri compared to the callitrichines. At posterior dental levels, Saimiri has the lowest palatonasal index [interdental (palatal) width/width of the nasal cavity] and highest bizygomatic-interorbital index. Distribution of osteoclasts indicates that the inferomedial surfaces of the orbits are resorptive in perinatal Saimiri, whereas, in all callitrichines, these surfaces are depository. Taken together, these findings suggest that pneumatization in Saimiri is suppressed by an inward growth trajectory of the orbits, relatively large posterior dentition, and a correspondingly compressed nasal region.

Frontal sinus ontogeny and covariation with bone structures in a modern human population

“…Because the morphology and association of the components of anatomical systems are affected by developmental and functional factors, we expected that traits sharing spatial, functional or developmental attributes are linked and vary in a coordinated manner (Olson & Miller, ). The extent of the maxillary sinus, which is the most studied of the paranasal sinuses, is known to be influenced in New World monkeys by the relative dental size and the growth of adjacent skeletal structures of the maxilla; histomorphometric studies have confirmed that the growing maxillary sinus extends into areas without constraints (Smith et al, ). In humans, the maxillary sinus is larger in individuals with larger faces and it accommodates in the available space left by the lateral nasal walls: individuals with narrower nasal cavities present larger maxillary sinuses (Butaric & Maddux, ; Butaric et al, ; Holton et al, ).…”

“…Some evolutionary, clinical, and surgical studies have provided evidence of association between the morphology of paranasal sinuses and the surrounding bony structures (e.g., Fatu et al, ; Flanigan et al, ; Hamdy & Abdel‐Wahed, ; Park et al, ; Rahmati et al, ; Smith et al, ; Štoković et al, ; Zollikofer & Weissmann, ) and between sinuses and stature in humans (Ruf & Pancherz, ). Studies comparing different species of mammals have shown that the FS volume is positively associated with skull size (Curtis et al, ; Farke, ; Zollikofer et al, ).…”

Maxillary sinus variation in hybrid macaques: implications for the genetic basis of craniofacial pneumatization

“…This implies that sinus variation, including the patterns of presence/absence and the degree of expansion, depends on the limitations to pneumatization imposed by the surrounding facial architecture during the ontogenetic process. This structural hypothesis is supported by the finding that species lacking the maxillary sinus present specific orofacial features that probably prevent maxillary pneumatization in the early stages of the ontogenetic process (Smith et al ., , ). The correlation between paranasal sinus size and skull architecture further supports the structural hypothesis (Koppe, Rae & Swindler, ; Zollikofer et al ., ).…”

Eye Size at Birth in Prosimian Primates: Life History Correlates and Growth Patterns

“…Specimens were selected from a larger sample of infant cadavers currently housed in the laboratory of TDS that either died postnatally or were stillborn. There are inherent difficulties in knowing the precise somatic age of infant primates (see discussion by Smith and Leigh, 1998 [24]; Smith et al, 2011 [25]). To minimize the possibility of including underdeveloped perinatal specimens in our analysis, fetuses or stillbirths that were clearly premature were excluded from the study.…”