Second premolar agenesis is associated with mandibular form: a geometric morphometric analysis of mandibular cross-sections

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare mandibular form (i.e., size and shape) between patients with agenesis of the lower second premolar (P2) and a control group with no agenesis. Three hypotheses were tested: (H1) agenesis causes a change in mandibular morphology because of inadequate alveolar ridge development in the area of the missing tooth (mandibular plasticity); (H2) agenesis is caused by spatial limitations within the mandible (dental plasticity); and (H3) common genetic/epigenetic factors cause agenesis and affect mandibular form (pleiotropy). A geometric morphometric analysis was applied to cross-sectional images of computed tomography (CT) scans of three matched groups (n=50 each): (1) regularly erupted P2; (2) agenesis of P2 and the primary second molar in situ; and (3) agenesis of P2 and the primary second molar missing for >3 months. Cross-sections of the three areas of interest (first premolar, P2, first molar) were digitized with 23 landmarks and superimposed by a generalized Procrustes analysis. On average, the mandibular cross-sections were narrower and shorter in patients with P2 agenesis compared with that in the control group. Both agenesis groups featured a pronounced submandibular fossa. These differences extended at least one tooth beyond the agenesis-affected region. Taken together with the large interindividual variation that resulted in massively overlapping group distributions, these findings support genetic and/or epigenetic pleiotropy (H3) as the most likely origin of the observed covariation between mandibular form and odontogenesis. Clinically, reduced dimensions and greater variability of mandibular form, as well as a pronounced submandibular fossa, should be expected during the treatment planning of patients with P2 agenesis.

International Journal of Oral Science (2016) 8, 254260

http://www.nature.com/ijos

Web End =www.nature.com/ijos

Michael H Bertl1, Kristina Bertl2,3, Manuel Wagner3, Andr Gahleitner3,4, Andreas Stavropoulos2, Christian Ulm3 and Philipp Mitteroecker5

The aim of this study was to compare mandibular form (i.e., size and shape) between patients with agenesis of the lower second premolar (P2) and a control group with no agenesis. Three hypotheses were tested: (H1) agenesis causes a change in mandibular morphology because of inadequate alveolar ridge development in the area of the missing tooth (mandibular plasticity); (H2) agenesis is caused by spatial limitations within the mandible (dental plasticity); and (H3) common genetic/ epigenetic factors cause agenesis and affect mandibular form (pleiotropy). A geometric morphometric analysis was applied to cross-sectional images of computed tomography (CT) scans of three matched groups (n = 50 each): (1) regularly erupted P2;(2) agenesis of P2 and the primary second molar in situ; and (3) agenesis of P2 and the primary second molar missing for43 months. Cross-sections of the three areas of interest (rst premolar, P2, rst molar) were digitized with 23 landmarks and superimposed by a generalized Procrustes analysis. On average, the mandibular cross-sections were narrower and shorter in patients with P2 agenesis compared with that in the control group. Both agenesis groups featured a pronounced submandibular fossa. These differences extended at least one tooth beyond the agenesis-affected region. Taken together with the large interindividual variation that resulted in massively overlapping group distributions, these ndings support genetic and/or epigenetic pleiotropy (H3) as the most likely origin of the observed covariation between mandibular form and odontogenesis. Clinically, reduced dimensions and greater variability of mandibular form, as well as a pronounced submandibular fossa, should be expected during the treatment planning of patients with P2 agenesis.

International Journal of Oral Science (2016) 8, 254260; doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2016.41

Web End =10.1038/ijos.2016.41; published online 18 November 2016

Keywords: agenesis; cross-sections; geometric morphometrics; mandibular form

INTRODUCTION

Lower second premolars (P2) are the most common congenitally missing teethnot considering third molarswith a prevalence of 3%.15 Although the primary second molars may be kept in some cases,67 more often, other treatment options are required for the replacement of the missing second premolar.810 Treatment options include autotransplantation,1112 comprehensive orthodontic treatment with either space closure13 or implant site development14 and/ or an implant-supported restoration.1516 In such cases, there are specic spatial requirements for the size and cross-sectional shape of the mandibular site to ensure full bony coverage of the implant or transplanted tooth root surface.

The form of the mandible is determined by continuous bone growth and remodelling throughout ontogeny and adulthood, inuenced both by genetic and epigenetic factors, such as muscle activity and biomechanical forces during mastication.1720 After the cessation

of craniofacial growth, the alveolar ridge remains heavily inuenced by the presence and position of teeth; it undergoes signicant remodelling after tooth loss.21 Tooth agenesis is likely to affect mandibular shape, at least locally. Conversely, dental development, starting from the formation of the tooth bud, takes place within the growing mandible.Mandibular dimensions may therefore have the potential to affect tooth development, eventually leading to tooth agenesis if certain key dimensions in the mandible are below a minimum threshold.Indeed, it has been shown that agenesis patients differ from normal individuals in various aspects of facial morphology22 and that the cross-sectional dimension of the mandible covary with other facial dimensions.2324 This association of cranial and mandibular morphology with dental agenesis may also result from variation in pleiotropic genes, that is, genes that are involved both in craniofacial development and odontogenesis. Numerous syndromes and genes related to tooth agenesis have been identied,25 many of which also inuence other

1Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 2Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology, University of Malm, Malm, Sweden; 3Division of Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 4Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Division of Osteoradiology, General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria and 5Department of Theoretical Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaCorrespondence: Dr MH Bertl, Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Sensengasse 2a, Vienna 1090, AustriaE-mail: mailto:[email protected]

Web End [email protected] Accepted 12 July 2016

OPEN

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Second premolar agenesis is associated with mandibular form: a geometric morphometric analysis of mandibular cross-sections

Second premolar agenesis and mandibular form

MH Bertl et al

255

craniodental traits, such as maxillary retrognathia22,2627 and palatally

displaced or transposed canines.9,28

Therefore, three hypotheses can be formulated about the mechanisms linking dental agenesis to mandibular morphology:

(H1) Tooth agenesis may affect mandibular skeletal development owing to the lack of tissue growth induction (i.e., mandibular plasticity). In this case, it would be expected that differences in mandibular morphology between agenesis and non-agenesis patients would be primarily located in the vicinity of the missing tooth and other regions would remain largely unaffected.

(H2) If a minimum space within the mandible is required for successful tooth development, limited mandibular dimensions may lead to agenesis simply because of spatial limitations for the emerging tooth bud (i.e., dental plasticity). In this case, it would be expected that global mandibular morphology in agenesis patients would be considerably different compared with that in non-agenesis patients. Additionally, a minimum spatial requirement for odontogenesis should produce well-separated distributions of mandibular form between those groups.

(H3) Genetic and/or epigenetic factors affect both the mandibular form and the probability of tooth agenesis (i.e., genetic and/or epigenetic pleiotropy). Similarly to the previous hypothesis, this would also be supported by an association of tooth agenesis and global mandibular morphology. However, because of the highly polygenic basis of mandibular form,1920,2930 the distributions of mandibular shape for agenesis and non-agenesis patients are likely to overlap massively.

We tested these hypotheses by comparing mandibular form(i.e., size and shape) between patients with agenesis of the lower P2 and a control group with no agenesis. To this end, we applied geometric morphometric methods to cross-sectional outlines of the mandibular body in the vicinity of P2. Geometric morphometrics, which is based on landmark coordinates instead of distance measurements, allows for the analysis and visualization complex shape differences and variance patterns.3133

MATERIALS AND METHODSData collectionThree groups of 50 patients each, 418 years of age, with regularly erupted mandibular rst premolars and rst molars, were formed by screening computed tomography (CT) records of the University Clinic

of Dentistry (Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria) between 2004 and 2014: group 1 (control) consisted of patients with the lower P2 regularly erupted and in situ; group 2 (agenesis) consisting of patients with the agenesis of at least one lower P2 with the primary second molar in situ (if agenesis of the lower P2 was bilateral, the test side was chosen by coin toss); group 3 (agenesis post-ex) consisting of patients with agenesis of at least one lower P2, where the primary second molar had been extracted at least 3 months before the CT scan. Groups 1 and 3 were matched to group 2 regarding sex, age (3 years) and mandibular side. Patients who had previously received augmentation procedures in this area were excluded.

The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Medical University of Vienna (EK-No. 2005/2012).

Dental CT scans and image preparationDental CT scans had been recorded with a standard dental CT investigation protocol34 with two different devices (Tomoscan SR-6000 (Philips Medical Systems, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) with 1 mm slice thickness, 1 mm table feed, 120 kV, 75 mA, 2 s scan time, 100120 mm eld of view, high-resolution bone lter; Somatom Sensation 4 (Siemens, Forchheim, Germany) with 0.5 mm slice thickness, 1 mm table feed, 120 kV, 80 mA, 1 s scan time, 100120 mm eld of view, high-resolution bone lter). Axial slices were used to build an orthoradial multiplanar reconstruction, which was calculated perpendicular to a manually drawn central line of the mandibular arch and to the mandibular plane. At the side of the mandible included in the analysis, three regions of interest were identied: the area of the rst premolar (r4); the area of P2, the second primary molar, or the gap between the rst premolar and rst molar (r5); the area of the rst molar (r6) (Figure 1a). For each region, a cross-sectional image was selected at either the mesiodistal midpoint of the tooth crown or at the centre of the gap between the rst premolar and rst molar.

All images were then arranged with the buccal side to the left and the lingual side to the right and presented in a random order to a single investigator (MW). The examiner scaled the images and identied and digitally placed the following landmarks using tpsUtil (version 1.68)35 and tpsDIG2 (version 2.22)36 software solutions. Two landmarks were placed on the buccal and lingual alveolar crest, and 21 landmarks were placed approximately equidistantly along the buccal and lingual contour of the mandible (Figure 1a).

r4 r5 r6

Buccal Lingual

Figure 1 Landmark scheme for the mandibular cross-sections. (a) Cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) reconstructions at the three regions of interest: rst premolar (r4), second premolar (r5) and rst molar (r6) with xed landmarks (red) and semilandmarks (white). (b) Reconstructed mandibular outlines of all 450 sections after standardizing the location and orientation of the landmark congurations.

International Journal of Oral Science

Second premolar agenesis and mandibular form

MH Bertl et al

256

Morphometric analysisThe form of each mandibular cross-section was represented by the 23 landmarks, of which the two landmarks representing the buccal and lingual alveolar crest were treated as xed anatomical landmarks and the remaining 21 as semilandmarks along the mandibular contour. After the initial, approximately equidistant placement, their exact positions were estimated by the sliding landmark algorithm to minimize the root summed squared distances (Procrustes distance) among all superimposed cross-sections and their sample average.3738

The resulting 450 congurations of 23 landmarks were superimposed by a Generalized Procrustes Analysis33,39 (Figure 1b). This least squares-based superimposition standardizes the landmark congurations for overall position, scale and orientation, yielding a set of shape coordinates for each cross-section. For the present study, not only the shape of the cross-sections but also their size was of interest. Thus, for certain analyses, the shape coordinates were rescaled by the congurations centroid size to perform the analyses of the full form information (i.e., size and shape).4041 Centroid size is a standard measure of the overall size of a landmark conguration; it equals the square root of the summed squared distances of the landmarks from their centroid (average landmark position).

Group-wise means and variances of the cross-sectional area (based on the polygon dened by the measured landmarks) and centroid size, as well as the total variance of cross-sectional shape were calculated. The group mean forms, together with extrapolated versions, were represented as reconstructed cross-sectional forms. The differences between the group mean forms were analysed by a principal component analysis (PCA) of the average rescaled shape coordinates. The statistical signicance of group mean differences was estimated by permutation tests,42 based on the Euclidean distance between-group mean forms as the test statistic and 10 000 random permutations.

To represent the individual variation around these means, the individual congurations were projected onto the two principal components (PCs) of the mean forms (between-group PCA).43

In addition, scores (orthogonal projections) for each individual along the mean difference vectors were computed. These scores represent the individual expression of the form features that differ most between the groups. Histograms of these scores allowed for the assessment of separation or overlap among groups.

RESULTSEach group comprised 19 male and 31 female patients. In 24 of these patients, the left side of the mandible was measured, and in 26, the right side. The mean ages of the control, agenesis and agenesis post-ex groups were 22.9 5.5, 22.8 5.6 and 25.0 8.1 years, respectively.

The cross-sectional area was signicantly smaller in the two agenesis groups compared with that in the control group (Po0.005 for both r4 and r5; P = 0.02 for r6; Table 1). Similarly, centroid size, as a measure of overall size, was smaller in both agenesis groups compared with the

control group for the three regions of interest (Figure 2). In contrast, the variance of both the centroid size and shape of the mandibular cross-section was smallest in the control group (Figure 2). Differences in the variance of the cross-sectional area were not as pronounced as those for centroid size and shape. However, the corresponding coefcients of variation for cross-sectional area (standard deviation divided by the mean as a size correction) were clearly the smallest in the control group.

Apart from these size differences, the mandibular cross-sections also differed in shape between the agenesis groups and the control group. Although the average differences were subtle, they were consistent across both agenesis groups and across the three regions of interest (P = 0.004 for r4 and P = 0.02 for both r5 and r6). Figures 3 and 4 show the group mean forms along with extrapolations of their mutual differences. On average, the three regions of interest were narrower and shorter in the agenesis groups compared with those in the control group. Furthermore, in patients with dental agenesis the mandibular cross-sections featured a pronounced lingual alveolar plate and a distinct concavity (submandibular fossa) underneath the mylohyoid line. The extent of this concavity increased from the r4 to the r6 region.

The consistent pattern of form differences is also shown by the PCA in Figure 5. Whereas PC 1 mainly contrasts the three analysed dental regions, PC 2 similarly distinguishes the control group from the agenesis patients for all three regions of interest. Extraction of the primary molar at the r5 region in the post-ex group induced more pronounced shape differences compared with the other groups; thus, the corresponding mean form deviated from the other agenesis groups in the PC plot.

Despite the clear pattern of average form differences, individual variation around these means was substantial, leading to a massive overlap of group distributions. To display this group overlap, Figure 6 presents histograms of individual form scores that maximize the average difference between the control and agenesis groups. Despite this maximization of group differences, the form scores show strong overlap for all group comparisons. Similarly, the between-group PCA of all individuals in Supplementary Figure S1 shows a strong multivariate overlap among the groups.

Table 1 Means and standard deviation of the mandibular cross-sectional areas (in cm2) at the three regions of interest (r4, r5, r6) for the control group and the two agenesis groups

Groups r4 r5 r6

Control 2.68 (0.47) 2.65 (0.42) 2.72 (0.37) Agenesis 2.41 (0.50) 2.37 (0.50) 2.52 (0.49)

Agenesis post-ex 2.35 (0.44) 2.11 (0.45) 2.52 (0.46)

4.0

0.25

0.008

mean centroid size

centroid size variance

4.8

0.20

0.006

0.15

shape variance

4.6

0.004

4.4

0.10

4.2

0.05

0.002

4.0

0.00

0.000

r4 r5 r6 r4 r5 r6 r4 r5 r6

control

agenesis

agenesis post-ex

Figure 2 Mean centroid size (a), variance of centroid size (b) and total shape variance (c) of the three groups and the three dental regions (r4, r5 and r6).

International Journal of Oral Science

Second premolar agenesis and mandibular form

MH Bertl et al

257

Control 5

Control Agenesis Agenesis 5

r4

r5

r6

Control 5

Control Agenesis Agenesis 5

Control 5

Control Agenesis Agenesis 5

Figure 3 Mean forms of the control group and the agenesis group for all three regions (r4, r5 and r6), together with vefold extrapolations of these group differences. For example, to compute to the upper right congurationthe extrapolated agenesis formve times the average difference between agenesis and control group was added to the average control form.

r4

r5

r6

Control x 5

Control

Agenesis post-ex

Agenesis post-ex

Agenesis post-ex

Agenesis post-ex x 5

Agenesis post-ex x 2

Agenesis post-ex x 5

Control x 2

Control

Control x 5

Control

Figure 4 Mean forms of the control group and the agenesis post-ex group for all three regions (r4, r5 and r6), together with vefold extrapolations of these group differences.

International Journal of Oral Science

Second premolar agenesis and mandibular form

MH Bertl et al

258

+

+

Agensis post-ex r5

Agensis post-ex r4

Agenesis r5

Agenesis r4

Agensis post-ex r6

Agenesis r6

Control r4

Control r5 Control r6

PC 1

PC 2

PC 2

PC 1

Figure 5 Principal component analysis (PCA) of mandibular form. (a) Scatterplot of the rst two principal components (PCs) of the group mean forms. (b, c) Visualization of the form differences associated with the two PCs.

Control group versus agensis group

r4 r5 r6

Control group versus agenesis post-ex group

r4 r5 r6

14

20

15

12

15

10

Frequency

Frequency Frequency

8

10

10

Frequency

6

4

5

5

2

form score

form score form score form score

form score form score

Control group

Agenesis (post-ex) group

20

15

15

15

10

Frequency

Frequency

10

10

5

5

5

Figure 6 Histograms of individual scores for the form features that differ most between the control and agenesis groups (upper panel) and between the control and agenesis post-ex group (lower panel). These scores are orthogonal projections of the rescaled shape coordinates on the mean difference vectors.

DISCUSSIONThe results of this study clearly showed that the cross-sectional mandibular form (shape and size) in patients with agenesis of the lower P2 differed signicantly from that of patients without agenesis of P2. These differences were apparent not only in the region of P2 (r5) but also in the neighbouring regions of the rst premolar (r4) and rst molar (r6). Mandibular form differences extending (at least one tooth) beyond the agenesis area are not consistent with H1, the hypothesis of mandibular plasticity, which predicted that skeletal differences are

constrained to the close vicinity of the affected region (r5). Only the alveolar crest reacted locally to deciduous tooth loss (compare the pronounced shape differences at r5 between the control and agenesis post-ex groups in Figures 4 and 5). It has been shown previously that extraction of the primary molar in agenesis patients results in a 25% reduction of the original alveolar ridge width within 3 years and a 30% reduction within 6 years.44

Despite the average form differences, individual shape distributions greatly overlapped between both agenesis groups and the control

International Journal of Oral Science

Second premolar agenesis and mandibular form

MH Bertl et al

259

group. This nding favours H3, genetic or epigenetic pleiotropy, over H2, the hypothesis of dental plasticity. If a consistent minimum of mandibular dimensions acts as a threshold for dental development, the mandibular form variations would be more clearly separated between agenesis and control groups. The strong overlap that we found could to some degree result from a threshold that is highly variable across individuals. It seems more likely, however, that genetic or epigenetic pleiotropic factors inuence both mandibular form and odontogenesis. Such pleiotropic factors would account for the association between tooth agenesis and average mandibular form, whereas the highly polygenic basis of both traits would explain the considerable individual variation and the group overlap of mandibular form distributions.

The genetic network underlying tooth agenesis has received increased attention in the recent literature. Multiple signalling pathways important to tooth development as well as more than 150 syndromes and 80 genes related to tooth agenesis have been identied todate.25 The homeobox gene MSX1, which controls proliferation and differentiation in a variety of cell types, is one of the many candidate genes underlying agenesis. Several MSX1 mutations have been identied in tooth agenesis patients, and MSX1 is also a direct downstream target of WNT/-catenin signalling during craniofacial development. Imbalances in these signalling interactions may account for failures in both craniofacial development and odontogenesis.25,45

A pleiotropic genetic basis of tooth agenesis is also supported by the frequent co-occurrence with other dental anomalies, such as palatally displaced or transposed canines.9,28

A polygenic basis of mandibular morphology with numerous pleiotropic effects has been documented extensively in mice.1920,29,46

Cheverud et al.29 identied 26 chromosomal regions that affected more than two mandibular traits, half of which were related to the tooth-baring alveolar region. Workman et al.20 found that many of these traits also relate to molar morphology. In humans, maxillary retrognathia has been associated with mild22,27 and severe26 forms of

maxillary tooth agenesis. Similarly, mandibular retrognathia was prevalent in patients with mandibular tooth agenesis, suggesting an impeded sagittal development of the jaw associated with tooth agenesis.22 Vertical relations appear less affected.22,47 Similar to our results, these studies report standard deviations in the agenesis groups that markedly and consistently exceed those of individuals with normal dental development. Such a destabilization of development by genetic or environmental perturbations, leading to increased phenotypic variability, has been documented in various biological and biomedical contexts.4853

The cross-sectional form of the human mandible has been studied in anatomical sections54 as well as CT scans,24,5556 and was associated with varying facial dimensions24,55 and dental inclinations.56 The submandibular fossa was previously found to increase from the premolar to the molar region, ranging from 0 to 5 mm in depth,57

which is reected by PC 1 in our study. The extent of this fossa has been described as highly variable.57 While we found the submandibular fossa to increase in depth from r4 to r6, the variance of both size and shape decreased from r4 to r6 in the control group (Figure 2). It has been previously shown that cross-sectional dimensions of the mandible are sexually dimorphic;24 indeed, we also found sexual differences in cross-sectional size and shape that were consistent across regions of interest and agenesis groups. Therefore, these differences did not confound our results on agenesis despite the unequal number of males and females herein, which simply represents the higher prevalence of tooth agenesis in females.3,47

Our ndings of reduced mandibular dimensions in agenesis patients have clinical implications for the restoration of congenitally missing P2 by endosseous replacement (tooth autotransplantation or implant installation) with specic minimum bone volume requirements.58

The shape differences between agenesis and non-agenesis patients particularly the prevalence of a pronounced submandibular fossa in agenesis patientsmay pose a risk for lingual perforation during tooth extraction or implantation. Early reports of such perforations due to extractions date back more than half a century,5960 whereas more recently, similar complications have been reported for the placement of dental implants.6163 A submandibular fossa depth 42 mm has been identied as a risk factor for lingual cortex perforation during implant placement,64 putting 10%18% of patients at risk when installing a 10-mm implant.57,65 Penetration of the lingual plate in the submandibular fossa endangers the Nevus mylohyoideus, the A. andV. mylohyoidea, the glandula submandibularis, and the M. mylohyoi-deus. Because the submandibular fossa depth is often difcult to estimate by clinical examination, from only the alveolar bone width, or by standard two-dimensional imaging,62,64 three-dimensional radio-graphic examination of the posterior mandible is indicated for the treatment planning of agenesis patients.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Cross-sectional mandibular size and shape differ signicantly between patients with and without agenesis of the lower P2.

2. This effect extends beyond a localized morphological change, suggesting pleiotropic genetic/epigenetic effects as mechanisms that link craniofacial growth and odontogenesis.

3. Clinically, a greater variability in mandibular form, a more pronounced lingual alveolar plate, and a distinct submandibular fossa underneath the mylohyoid line should be expected when treating patients with lower P2 agenesis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe thank Helge Schchtner for his support in sampling the CT scans. Further,

the authors declare no conict of interest and no external funding was obtained

for the present study.

1 Bergstrm K. An orthopantomographic study of hypodontia, supernumeraries and other anomalies in school children between the ages of 89 years. An epidemiological study. Swed Dent J 1977; 1(4): 145157.

2 Locht S. Panoramic radiographic examination of 704 Danish children aged 9-10 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1980; 8(7): 375380.

3 Polder BJ, Vant Hof MA, Van der Linden FP et al. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of dental agenesis of permanent teeth. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004; 32(3): 217226.

4 Rlling S, Poulsen S. Agenesis of permanent teeth in 8138 Danish schoolchildren: prevalence and intra-oral distribution according to gender. Int J Paediatr Dent 2009;

19(3): 172175.5 Rakhshan V. Meta-analysis of observational studies on the most commonly missing permanent dentition (excluding the third molars) in non-syndromic dental patients or randomly-selected subjects, and the factors affecting the observed rates. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015; 39(3): 199207.6 Sletten DW, Smith BM, Southard KA et al. Retained deciduous mandibular molars in adults: a radiographic study of long-term changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124(6): 625630.7 Bergendal B. When should we extract deciduous teeth and place implants in young individuals with tooth agenesis. J Oral Rehabil 2008; 35(Suppl 1): 5563.

8 Albers DD. Ankylosis of teeth in the developing dentition. Quintessence Int 1986; 17(5): 303308.

9 Bjerklin K, Kurol J, Valentin J. Ectopic eruption of maxillary rst permanent molars and association with other tooth and developmental disturbances. Eur J Orthod 1992;

14(5): 369375.

International Journal of Oral Science

Second premolar agenesis and mandibular form

MH Bertl et al

260

41 Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Windhager S et al. A brief review of shape, form, and allometry in geometric morphometrics, with applications to human facial morphology. Hystrix 2013; 24(1): 5966.

42 Good P. Permutation tests: a practical guide to resampling methods for testing hypotheses. New York: Springer, 2000.

43 Mitteroecker P, Bookstein F. Linear discrimination, ordination, and the visualization of selection gradients in modern morphometrics. Evol Biol 2011; 38(1): 100114.

44 Ostler MS, Kokich VG. Alveolar ridge changes in patients congenitally missing mandibular second premolars. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71(2): 144149.

45 Medio M, Yeh E, Popelut A et al. Wnt/-catenin signaling and Msx1 promote outgrowth of the maxillary prominences. Front Physiol 2012; 3: 375.

46 Leamy LJ, Routman EJ, Cheverud JM. A search for quantitative trait loci affecting asymmetry of mandibular characters in mice. Evolution 1997; 51(3): 957969.

47 Bauer N, Heckmann K, Sand A et al. Craniofacial growth patterns in patients with congenitally missing permanent teeth. J Orofac Orthop 2009; 70(2): 139151.

48 Bookstein FL, Streissguth AP, Sampson PD et al. Corpus callosum shape and neuropsychological decits in adult males with heavy fetal alcohol exposure.

Neuroimage 2002; 15(1): 233251.49 Hallgrmsson B, Brown JJ, Ford-Hutchinson AF et al. The brachymorph mouse and the developmental-genetic basis for canalization and morphological integration. Evol Dev 2006; 8(1): 6173.50 Hermisson J, Wagner GP. The population genetic theory of hidden variation and genetic robustness. Genetics 2004; 168(4): 22712284.

51 Mitteroecker P. The developmental basis of variational modularity: insights from quantitative genetics, morphometrics, and developmental biology. Evol Biol 2009;

36(4): 377385.52 Ramler D, Mitteroecker P, Shama LN et al. Nonlinear effects of temperature on body form and developmental canalization in the threespine stickleback. J Evol Biol 2014; 27(3): 497507.53 Thornhill R, Mller AP. Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 1997; 72(4): 497548.54 Schubert W, Kobienia BJ, Pollock RA. Cross-sectional area of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997; 55(7): 689692; discussion 693.55 Tsunori M, Mashita M, Kasai K. Relationship between facial types and tooth and bone characteristics of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. Angle Orthod 1998; 68(6): 557562.56 Yu Q, Pan XG, Ji GP et al. The association between lower incisal inclination and morphology of the supporting alveolar bonea cone-beam CT study. Int J Oral Sci 2009; 1(4): 217223.57 de Souza LA, de Souza Picorelli Assis NM, Ribeiro RA et al. Assessment of mandibular posterior regional landmarks using cone-beam computed tomography in dental implant surgery. Ann Anat 2016; 205: 5359.

58 Bertl K. Alveolar bone remodelling after extraction of the deciduous tooth in patients with agenesis of the lower second premolar. A radiographic analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26(S12): 45.

59 Edwards RW. Foreign bodies in the submandibular fossa. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1949; 2(9): 11181121.

60 Stacy GC, Orth D. Perforation of the lingual alveolar plate in association with mandibular third molars. Report of a case. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1964; 17: 586591.

61 Angelopoulos C, Thomas SL, Thomas S et al. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identication of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66(10): 21302135.

62 Chan HL, Brooks SL, Fu JH et al. Cross-sectional analysis of the mandibular lingual concavity using cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22(2): 201206.

63 Chan HL, Benavides E, Yeh CY et al. Risk assessment of lingual plate perforation in posterior mandibular region: a virtual implant placement study using cone-beam computed tomography. J Periodontol 2011; 82(1): 129135.

64 Parnia F, Fard EM, Mahboub F et al. Tomographic volume evaluation of submandibular fossa in patients requiring dental implants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109(1): e32e36.

65 Braut V, Bornstein MM, Kuchler U et al. Bone dimensions in the posterior mandible: a retrospective radiographic study using cone beam computed tomography. Part 2 analysis of edentulous sites. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2014; 34(5): 639647.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articles Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Web End =http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

r The Author(s) 2016

Supplementary Information for this article can be found on the International Journal of Oral Science website (http://www.nature.com/ijos)

10 Winter GB, Gelbier MJ, Goodman JR. Severe infra-occlusion and failed eruption of deciduous molars associated with eruptive and developmental disturbances in the permanent dentition: a report of 28 selected cases. Br J Orthod 1997; 24(2): 149157.

11 Josefsson E, Brattstrm V, Tegsj U et al. Treatment of lower second premolar agenesis by autotransplantation: four-year evaluation of eighty patients. Acta Odontol Scand. 1999; 57(2): 111115.

12 Bokelund M, Andreasen JO, Christensen SS et al. Autotransplantation of maxillary second premolars to mandibular recipient sites where the primary second molars were impacted, predisposes for complications. Acta Odontol Scand 2013; 71(6): 14641468.

13 Fines CD, Rebellato J, Saiar M. Congenitally missing mandibular second premolar: treatment outcome with orthodontic space closure. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123(6): 676682.

14 Eliov P, Marek I, Kamnek M. Implant site development in the distal region of the mandible: bone formation and its stability over time. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145(3): 333340.

15 Sabri R. Management of congenitally missing second premolars with orthodontics and single-tooth implants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125(5): 634

642.16 Borzabadi-Farahani A. Orthodontic considerations in restorative management of hypodontia patients with endosseous implants. J Oral Implantol 2012; 38(6): 779791.17 Linder-Aronson S. The relation between nasorespiratory function and dentofacial morphology. Am J Orthod 1983; 83(5): 443444.

18 Yamada T, Tanne K, Miyamoto K et al. Inuences of nasal respiratory obstruction on craniofacial growth in young Macaca fuscata monkeys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 111(1): 3843.

19 Klingenberg CP, Leamy LJ, Routman EJ et al. Genetic architecture of mandible shape in mice: effects of quantitative trait loci analyzed by geometric morphometrics. Genetics 2001; 157(2): 785802.

20 Workman MS, Leamy LJ, Routman EJ et al. Analysis of quantitative trait locus effects on the size and shape of mandibular molars in mice. Genetics 2002; 160(4): 15731586.

21 Schropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L et al. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single-tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12-month prospective study. Int J Periodont Restor Dent 2003; 23(4): 313323.

22 Kreczi A, Proff P, Reicheneder C et al. Effects of hypodontia on craniofacial structures and mandibular growth pattern. Head Face Med 2011; 7: 23.

23 Kohakura S, Kasai K, Ohno I et al. Relationship between maxillofacial morphology and morphological characteristics of vertical sections of the mandible obtained by CT scanning. J Nihon Univ Sch Dent 1997; 39(2): 7177.

24 Swasty D, Lee J, Huang JC et al. Cross-sectional human mandibular morphology as assessed in vivo by cone-beam computed tomography in patients with different vertical facial dimensions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139(4 Suppl): e377e389.

25 Yin W, Bian Z. The Gene Network Underlying Hypodontia. J Dent Res 2015; 94(7): 878885.

26 Ogaard B, Krogstad O. Craniofacial structure and soft tissue prole in patients with severe hypodontia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 108(5): 472477.

27 Wisth PJ, Thunold K, Be OE. The craniofacial morphology of individuals with hypodontia. Acta Odontol Scand 1974; 32(4): 281290.

28 Bartolo A, Calleja N, McDonald F et al. Dental anomalies in rst-degree relatives of transposed canine probands. Int J Oral Sci 2015; 7(3): 169173.

29 Cheverud JM, Routman EJ, Irschick DJ. Pleiotropic effects of individual gene loci on mandibular morphology. Evolution 1997; 51(6): 20062016.

30 Claes P, Liberton DK, Daniels K et al. Modeling 3D facial shape from DNA. PLoS Genet 2014; 10(3): e1004224.

31 Bookstein FL. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

32 Slice DE. Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. New York: Kluwer Press, 2005.

33 Mitteroecker P, Gunz P. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evol Biol 2009; 36(2): 235247.

34 Gahleitner A, Watzek G, Imhof H. Dental CT: imaging technique, anatomy, and pathologic conditions of the jaws. Eur Radiol 2003; 13(2): 366376.

35 Rohlf FJ. tpsUtil, le utility program. Stony Brook: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, 2004.

36 Rohlf FJ. tpsDig. Stony Brook: Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, 2006.

37 Bookstein FL. Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: morphometrics of group differences in outline shape. Med Image Anal 1997; 1(3): 225243.

38 Gunz P, Mitteroecker P. Semilandmarks: a method for quantifying curves and surfaces. Hystrix 2013; 24(1): 103109.

39 Rohlf FJ, Slice D. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Biol 1990; 39(1): 4059.

40 Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bernhard M et al. Comparison of cranial ontogenetic trajectories among great apes and humans. J Hum Evol 2004; 46(6): 679697.

International Journal of Oral Science