Comparative morphology of normal and cleft minipigs demonstrates dual origin of incisors

Putnová, Iveta; Odehnalová, Svetlana; Horak, Vratiskav; Stehlík, Ladislav; Mı́šek, Ivan; Lozanoff, Scott; Buchtová, Marcela

doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2011.06.005

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Palate development is a temporospatial specificity process involving different signals at different stages and interaction with nearby tissue and organs, such as maxillofacial tissue. Putnová et al ( ) found that the palate development in the minipig was from E20 to E36 which suggested that the histology and time phase of the minipig palate development were closer to those of humans and that the physiological process may be more like that of humans than mice. But they did not show a detailed histological process and no ultrastructures were investigated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dissection of the oral maxillofacial region of the miniature pig is quite similar to that of humans, and miniature pigs are increasingly used as a large animal model for dental and orofacial research (Wang et al, ; Song et al, ; Wang et al, ). Although Putnová et al, () showed the histological changes of palate development of minipigs, they did not show a detailed data about minipig palatal development and no ultrastructures were investigated. In this study, we characterized the developmental palate in the miniature pig using detailed histological and ultrastructural methods and found that its development is similar to that of humans, confirming its applicability as a large animal model for palate development.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comprehensive Study of Palate Development in Miniature Pig

Sun

Wang

Liu

et al. 2017

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Palate development is an important morphogenetic event in facial development, including the fusion of the lateral and medial nasal portions of the frontonasal process and maxilla. Derailments of any of these events may result in cleft palate, the most frequent congenital craniofacial abnormality. Recent research has shown that the microanatomy of the miniature pig oral maxillofacial region is quite similar to that of humans, and the use of miniature pigs as a large animal model for dental and orofacial research is increasing. Little information is available, however, about the development of the miniature pig palate. Here, using histological and ultrastructural methods, we describe the developmental stages of the palate in miniature pigs. Sections from E26, E30, E35, E40, E45, and E50 embryos were stained with hematoxylin-eosin, and selected specimens were also processed for electron microscopy. The development of the miniature pig palate can be divided into four stages: growth of the bilateral palatal shelves alongside the tongue at E30; elevation of the horizontal position above the tongue at E35; establishment of bilateral shelf contact at the midline from E35-50; and a final fusion step at E50, similar to the mouse and human. The histological characteristics of the miniature pig palate at different developmental stages were synchronously verified at the ultrastructural level. Our study provides a piece of first-hand data regarding palate morphological organogenesis in the miniature pig and a foundation for further research with this model to explore mechanisms of cleft palate development. Anat Rec, 300:1409-1419, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Study of Palate Development in Miniature Pig

Sun

Wang

Liu

et al. 2017

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their upper incisor is formed by the fusion of several dental placodes, among which the most laterally located one is originated from the maxillary prominence (Peterkova et al , ; Kriangkrai et al ). Artiodactylan pigs have three upper incisors, and it has been suggested that dI 1 and dI 2 are derived from the medial nasal prominence, whereas dI 3 is from the maxillary prominence (Putnova et al ). Despite the different numbers of upper incisors between several taxa of living mammals, it is commonly observed that a few incisors are developmentally derived from the mesial part of the maxillary prominence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterning of mammalian heterodont dentition within the upper and lower jaws

Yamanaka

Iwai

Uemura

et al. 2015

Evolution and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mammalian heterodont dentition is differentiated into incisors, canines, premolars, and molars in the mesial-distal direction, in both the upper and lower jaws. Although all the lower teeth are rooted in the mandible, the upper incisors are rooted in the premaxilla and the upper canine and the teeth behind it are in the maxilla. The present study uncovers ontogenetic backgrounds to these shared and differing mesiodistal patterns of the upper and lower dentition. To this end, we examined the dentition development of the house shrew, Suncus murinus, instead of the rodent model animals because the dentition of this primitive eutherian species includes all the tooth classes, and no toothless diastema region. In the shrew, the upper incisor-forming region extended over the medial nasal prominence and the mesial part of the maxillary prominence. Consequently, the maxillary and mandibular prominences were in a mirror-image relationship in terms of the mesiodistally differentiated tooth-forming regions and of the complementary gene expression pattern, with Bmp4 in the mesial and Fgf8 in the distal regions. This suggests shared molecular mechanisms regulating tooth class differentiation between the upper and lower jaws. However, the premaxillary bone appeared within the mesenchyme of the medial nasal prominence, but grew distally beyond the former epithelial boundary with the maxillary prominence to form, finally, the incisive (premaxillary-maxillary) suture just mesial to the canine. Therefore, the developmental locations of the upper incisors are not inconsistent with the classical osteological criterion of the upper canine by comparative odontologists.

show abstract

“…The miniature pig has proven to be a valuable animal model for diphyodont development and regeneration owing to its many similarities to human including the morphology, number and size of teeth, particularly its heterodont dentition (incisors, canines, premolars and molars) and diphyodont dentition, which are not available in rodents . The morphology and chronology of diphyodont dentition in miniature pigs have been well characterized by our previous studies and other reports . Moreover, recent breakthrough in porcine genome engineering aiming to overcome immunological challenges and potential risk of porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) transmission make safe clinical xenotransplantation possible .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…18,19 The morphology and chronology of diphyodont dentition in miniature pigs have been well characterized by our previous studies and other reports. [20][21][22] Moreover, recent breakthrough in porcine genome engineering aiming to overcome immunological challenges and potential risk of porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) transmission make safe clinical xenotransplantation possible. 14,17,23 However, studying whole-tooth regeneration using miniature pig as a model remains a significant obstacle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%