The relationship between masticatory function and craniofacial morphology: I. A cephalometric longitudinal analysis in the growing rat fed a soft diet

Kiliaridis, Stavros; Engström, Christer; Thilander, Birgit

doi:10.1093/ejo/7.4.273

Cited by 201 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to many mammals, rabbit jaw-adductor activity patterns vary with dietary properties (Herring and Scapino, 1973;Luschei and Goodwin, 1974;Gorniak and Gans, 1980;Thexton et al, 1980;Weijs et al, 1987Weijs et al, , 1989Gans et al, 1990;Dessem and Druzinsky, 1992;Hylander et al, 1992Hylander et al, , 2000Hylander et al, , 2005, such that increased jaw-adductor recruitment results in elevated peak strains along the mandible and higher TMJ reaction forces (Weijs and de Jongh, 1977;Hylander, 1979aHylander, ,b,c, 1992Hylander et al, 1998;. Lastly, previous work on rabbit mandibular plasticity responses to postweaning alteration of dietary properties and masticatory stresses is consistent with similar experiments in a variety of other mammals (Beecher and Corruccini, 1981;Bouvier and Hylander, 1981, 1982, 1996aBeecher et al, 1983;Kiliardis et al, 1985;Bouvier, 1987Bouvier, , 1988Bouvier and Zimny, 1987;Block et al, 1988;Yamada and Kimmel, 1991;Ravosa et al, 2007bRavosa et al, , 2008a.…”

Section: Experimental Model Of Craniofacial Plasticitysupporting

confidence: 65%

Phenotypic Plasticity and Function of the Hard Palate in Growing Rabbits

Menegaz

Sublett

Figueroa

et al. 2008

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphological variation related to differential loading is well known for many craniomandibular elements. Yet, the function of the hard palate, and in particular the manner in which cortical and trabecular bone of the palate respond to masticatory loads, remains more ambiguous. Here, experimental data are presented that address the naturalistic influence of biomechanical loading on the postweaning development and structure of the hard palate. A rabbit model was used to test the hypothesis that variation in the morphology of the hard palate is linked to variation in masticatory stresses. Rabbit siblings were divided as weanlings into soft and hard/tough dietary treatment groups of 10 subjects each and were raised for 15 weeks until subadulthood. MicroCT analyses indicate that rabbits subjected to elevated masticatory loading developed hard palates with significantly greater bone area, greater cortical bone thickness along the oral lamina, and thicker anterior palates. Such diet-induced levels of palatal plasticity are comparable to those for other masticatory elements, which likely reflect osteogenic responses for maintaining the functional integrity of the palate vis-à -vis elevated stresses during unilateral mastication. These data support a role for mechanical loading in the determination of palatal morphology, especially its internal structure, in living and fossil mammals such as the hominin Paranthropus. Furthermore, these findings have potential implications for the evolution of the mammalian secondary hard palate as well as for clinical considerations of human oral pathologies.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Model Of Craniofacial Plasticitysupporting

confidence: 65%

Phenotypic Plasticity and Function of the Hard Palate in Growing Rabbits

Menegaz

Sublett

Figueroa

et al. 2008

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The skeletal craniofacial morphology and craniocervical relationships have direct influence on masticatory and respiratory functions (Kiliaridis et al, 1985). Some reports show that biting force in adults with rectangular craniofacial morphology and skeletal deep bite is higher than in adults with long face morphology and open bite.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Arch Size, Biting Force, Bizygomatic Width and Face Height in Three Colombian Ethnic Groups

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The cephalometric landmarks (Table 1; Fig. 4) were derived from previous studies on rodents (Engstrom et al, 1988;Kiliaridis and Thilander, 1985;Singleton et al, 2006;Vandeberg et al, 2004a;VandeBerg et al, 2004b). Selected linear measurements were then (Table 2).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%