Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HARRIS 2007 Carabelli Et Tooth Size
HARRIS 2007 Carabelli Et Tooth Size
KEY WORDS tooth morphology; tooth development; cusp size; tooth size
ABSTRACT Carabelli’s trait is a morphological fea- Carabelli’s trait expressions. There are graded size
ture that can occur on the protocone of human maxillary responses between crown size (mesiodistal and buccolin-
molars. This study tests the hypothesis that Carabelli’s gual diameters), sizes of the four principal cusps, and
trait is correlated statistically with the dimensions of the morphological stage of Carabelli’s complex, though the
crown’s four principal cusps or whether, as a cingular statistical relationships are appreciably stronger in
feature, the trait truly accretes onto an otherwise unaf- males than females. Carabelli’s trait occurs preferen-
fected crown. Computer-assisted image analysis was tially in larger molars. In contrast, angular (shape) rela-
used to measure the 6 intercusp distances and 12 angu- tionships among cusp tips are not discernibly affected by
lar relationships among cusp tips on the permanent first trait size in either sex. There is the situation, then, that
molar of 300 young adult American whites. Carabelli’s Carabelli’s trait is developmentally correlated with
complex was scored using an 8-grade ordinal scheme. crown size, but with no apparent alteration of cusp
Crown size was quantified in three ways, namely as 1) arrangements, suggesting that the increases are isomet-
maximum mesiodistal and buccolingual diameters, 2) the ric across the occlusal table. Why the association is much
6 intercusp distances, and 3) the 12 angular cusp weaker in females remains speculative, but these data
arrangements. There was no sex difference in the mor- provide yet another line of evidence that, within a popu-
phological expression of Carabelli’s trait in this sample. lation, tooth size is associated in a positive fashion with
Overall crown size and intercusp distances were signifi- crown complexity. Am J Phys Anthropol 132:238–246,
cantly and progressively larger in molars with larger 2007. V 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
C
Carabelli’s trait is a morphological feature that occa- Dahlberg (1963) suggests that Carabelli’s cusp—most
sionally occurs on the mesiolingual aspect of maxillary common on the first molar—helps compensate for size
molars in humans (i.e., on the lingual surface of the pro- reductions of the posterior molars. Schwarz (1927) noted
tocone), especially in peoples of European extraction that a large Carabelli’s cusp’s interdigitation between the
(Meredith and Hixon, 1954; Turner and Hawkey, 1998). metaconid and entoconid might somehow enhance occlu-
The trait develops from the cingulum, and it ranges in sion and, possibly, trituration, at least until the crowns
morphology from a faint groove or furrow to a cusp out- are abraded flat.
line without lingual prominence up to a cusp of size Garn has suggested that there are positive associations
equivalent to the molar’s principal cusps (Dietz, 1944; between crown size and crown complexity (Garn et al.,
Kraus, 1959; Scott, 1980; Turner et al., 1991). 1966a,b; Garn, 1977). Garn does not discuss Carabelli’s
The adaptive significance of Carabelli’s trait, if any, trait explicitly; instead, his principle is that, within a
remains speculative. A homologous trait occurs in the population, larger teeth tend to be morphologically more
great apes, and the trait is of considerable antiquity in complex. By extension, Carabelli’s cusp should be more
humans (Korenhof, 1960). It is most common in people of common in larger teeth within a sample. Garn’s princi-
European extraction even though these groups tend to ple is supported by the positive intertrait associations
have small mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) crown documented by Keene (1968), Turner (1969), Lombardi
dimensions (Harris and Rathbun, 1991; Hanihara, 1998). (1975), Scott (1977a,b, 1979), Kieser and Becker (1989),
The larger cusp forms of the trait may provide additional and others. Importantly, trait associations do not occur
surface area that helps resist occlusal attrition (e.g., Dahl- just within a developmental field—where the dental ele-
berg, 1963), thus extending a molar’s functional life in an ments can be viewed as meristic series (Bateson, 1894)—
abrasive environment. This argument was strongly pro- but commonly among different tooth types, suggesting a
moted by Begg (Begg, 1954; Begg and Kesling, 1971). The broader, more fundamental level of morphogenetic inte-
contention is that, as the molars’ main cusps are worn gration.
down by abrasion, Carabelli’s cusp will occlude between
the metaconid and entoconid of the lower molar, thereby Correspondence to: Edward F. Harris, University of Tennessee,
extending the dentition’s function. Several researchers Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Room S301, 875
question this scenario since 1) the frequency of cases with Union Ave., Memphis, TN 38163. E-mail: eharris@utmem.edu
a Carabelli’s cusp large enough to provide this advantage
is small in any population and 2) the frequency of Carabel- Received 21 November 2005; accepted 8 August 2006
li’s complex is highest in Caucasians who are character-
ized by small tooth sizes brought about by comparatively DOI 10.1002/ajpa.20503
rapid tooth size reduction over the past several millennia Published online 31 October 2006 in Wiley InterScience
(Brace and Mahler, 1971; Frayer, 1978). Alternatively, (www.interscience.wiley.com).
C 2006
V WILEY-LISS, INC.
CARABELLI’S TRAIT AND MOLAR SIZE 239
Fig. 1. Three examples of the cusp form of Carabelli’s trait in contemporary American whites. Top row: Occlusal views of cusps
(asterisk) that occur on the lingual of the protocone. The left and right examples also have occlusal metallic restorations. Bottom
row: Corresponding sections oriented through Carabelli’s cusp to show the dentin component. Enamel is thickest over the apex of
the dentin projection, so while enamel accentuates the cusp’s prominence, this cingular feature has the same tissue structure as the
tooth’s main cusps, both dentin and enamel. Since the dentinoenamel junction was the interface between the inner and outer
enamel epithelium during tooth development (e.g., Ooë, 1981), the obvious topography in these mature teeth suggests a separate
enamel knot for, at least, the more prominent expressions of Carabelli’s complex. Kraus and Jordan (1965) likewise illustrate sev-
eral developing molar specimens where the inner enamel epithelium bulges out from the protocone in the presumptive area of the
Carabelli trait, thus carrying a formative dentin component that augments the enamel component of this feature.
Pertinent information stems from embryological stud- close an obvious dentin component in addition to thicker
ies of enamel knots (e.g., Jernvall et al., 1994; Thesleff enamel atop the feature. The question arises whether
and Jernvall, 1997; Thesleff et al., 2001; Luukko et al., Carabelli’s trait extracts its size from the developing
2003). Enamel knots are transient sites of nondividing IEE, or whether, as a cingular element, it simply supple-
cells that form on the inner enamel epithelium (IEE) ments the tooth size.
during the cap and bell stages of tooth formation (Butler, The present study is a statistical analysis of the de-
1956). Substances in the knots promote rapid cell prolif- pendency in the statistical sense between measures of
eration of adjacent structures, thus creating sites of cusp molar crown size and gradients of expression of Carabel-
formation. Several factors known to regulate crown size li’s complex. The purpose of the present study is to test
and cusp pattern are known to be active in enamel the two competing hypotheses listed in the prior para-
knots, notably fibroblast growth factors, epidermal graph—so far as can be inferred from study of the com-
growth factors, and bone morphogenetic proteins (e.g., pleted phenotypes. In addition to overall crown size,
Kettunen and Thesleff, 1998; Thesleff, 2003; Kassai intercusp distances were measured among the four prin-
et al., 2005; Plikus et al., 2005). cipal cusps on permanent maxillary first molar and the
Larger forms of Carabelli’s trait—those with a free size differences were tested among subsamples based on
apex—can approximate the occlusal area and height of a form and size of Carabelli’s trait.
principal cusp. There is, as yet, no specific evidence that
Carabelli’s cusp is initiated by an enamel knot (most MATERIALS AND METHODS
studies of epithelial signaling centers are conducted in
mice, which lack a cingulum; see Cohn, 1957), but, as The sample was drawn from North American whites
Kondo and Townsend (2006) suppose, it is reasonable to (n ¼ 300). These young adults (127 males, 173 females)
surmise that the same developmental events that initi- were free of any condition known to affect growth. Full-
ate formation of other cusps are involved. Figure 1 mouth dental casts were taken with rigid trays and
shows three examples of molars with the Carabelli trait, poured immediately in dental stone to prevent distortion.
and the corresponding sections through the feature dis- Dental charting had been conducted by direct intraoral
TABLE 2. Descriptive statistics, by sex and grade of Carabelli’s expression, and tests for among-grade differences in crown size1
Grades 0 + 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 + 7 Analysis of variance
Variable Sex n x SD n x SD n x SD n x SD n x SD n x SD R2 df F P
Maximum crown diameters
MD size M 42 9.7 0.50 21 10.0 0.45 9 10.2 0.54 14 10.3 0.35 19 10.5 0.72 8 10.2 0.36 0.244 5, 107 6.89 <0.0001
F 55 9.8 0.49 28 9.7 0.55 14 9.7 0.47 23 9.8 0.44 14 9.9 0.69 16 10.1 0.52 0.042 5, 144 1.26 0.2821
BL size M 46 11.3 0.58 22 11.6 0.71 10 11.8 0.71 15 11.9 0.62 22 11.8 0.62 9 12.0 0.48 0.141 5, 118 3.89 0.0027
F 61 11.2 0.63 33 11.0 0.55 15 11.2 0.37 24 11.0 0.43 17 11.4 1.08 18 11.4 0.48 0.060 5, 162 1.99 0.0822
1
Counts are of individuals, not teeth.
the lingual border of the protocone without extension to gists emphasize the cingular origin of Carabelli’s com-
the cingulum. Korenhof (1960), with access to the denti- plex, its ontogeny is shown by this crista (as well as
noenamel junction of the molars, describes a crista that other features) to stem from at least as early as the
he termed the cingulum–protocone crest. It courses from establishment of the morphology of the IEE during the
the apex of the protocone (at the dentinoenamel junc- bell stage well prior to crown mineralization.
tion) to the apex of Carabelli’s cusp. He notes that size of More compelling in this light are the observations
this crista is proportionate to size of the cusp, and this from several researchers that the positive forms of Cara-
crest probably is the most occlusal (so first to form) fea- belli’s complex have a dentinal component extending
ture shared in common by this trait and the crown from the protocone (e.g., de Terra, 1905; Korenhof, 1960;
proper. This is evidence for the associated development Kraus and Jordan, 1965), and it has long been recog-
of these two features since the presumptive morphology nized that prominent Carabelli’s cusps also possess an
of both is established at the IEE. So, while paleontolo- extension of the pulp horn (Fabian, 1928).
The present study shows that crown size per se is
indeed correlated with expression of Carabelli’s trait.
Small M1 crowns are more likely to exhibit no trait
expression, and increasing crown size increases the like-
lihood of cuspal expression of Carabelli’s complex. Reid
et al. (1991, 1992) and Kondo and Townsend (2006) like-
wise found a positive, \dose dependent" relationship
between size of Carabelli’s trait and crown size that they
measured as basal crown areas. As here, Reid and co-
workers found that size of the whole crown (i.e., all four
principal cusps) was affected, not just the protocone.
Reid’s group studied a sample of South African Bushmen
(mostly males); the present study shows that analogous
relationships occur in a group of Western European
extraction with appreciably different trait frequencies
and genetic backgrounds.
Results in Tables 2 and 3 show that the associations
between trait size and tooth size are stronger in males
than females. Statistically, the larger R2 for males stems
from the greater crown size increments among Carabel-
li’s trait grades than in females. Noss et al. (1983) also
found a stronger relationship in males than females
(their Table 2), but the underpinning genetic causes of
the sex differences remain unclear. The association in
males is much stronger than can be explained by propor-
tionate tooth size differences between the sexes.
Data in Kondo and Townsend’s study (2006) likewise
disclose the higher level of statistical associations
between measures of crown size and Carabelli’s trait in
males than females (their Table 3), and their working
hypothesis is that the sex difference is due to an
Fig. 4. Mean crown size partitioned by expression of Cara-
extended interval of mitotic activity in the IEE in males
belli’s trait. For both dimensions (mesiodistal and buccolingual), prior to stoppage by dentinal bridging. Bigger teeth in
crown size increases with trait expression in males, but the individuals in a population are so because of faster rates
trend is weak and nonsignificant in females. or extended intervals of growth or both. This explanation
TABLE 3. Descriptive statistics, by sex and grade of Carabelli’s expression, and tests
for among-grade differences in intercusp distances1
Grades 0 + 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 6+7 Analysis of variance
Variable Sex n x SD n x SD n x SD n x SD n x SD R2 df F P
Distance 1–2 M 22 6.2 0.64 12 6.7 0.68 5 6.9 0.66 12 6.8 0.66 7 7.5 1.07 0.253 5, 61 4.14 0.0027
F 32 6.5 0.47 18 6.5 0.42 11 6.4 0.64 16 6.4 0.56 10 6.7 1.20 0.016 5, 86 0.28 0.9218
Distance 1–3 M 22 6.5 0.58 12 7.2 0.66 5 7.2 0.65 12 7.0 0.36 7 8.2 1.45 0.352 5, 61 6.63 <0.0001
F 32 6.9 0.63 18 6.8 0.58 11 6.8 0.49 16 6.9 0.58 10 7.1 1.01 0.018 5, 86 0.32 0.8993
Distance 1–4 M 21 4.7 0.58 12 5.2 0.53 5 5.0 0.54 12 5.1 0.52 7 6.0 0.77 0.311 5, 60 5.42 0.0004
F 32 4.9 0.51 18 4.9 0.56 11 4.8 0.46 16 5.0 0.40 10 5.4 0.79 0.108 5, 86 2.07 0.0763
Distance 2–3 M 22 5.0 0.46 12 5.4 0.45 5 4.6 0.68 12 5.5 0.74 7 5.4 0.59 0.203 5, 61 3.11 0.0146
F 32 5.1 0.51 18 5.0 0.47 11 5.2 0.64 16 5.5 0.57 10 5.4 0.36 0.128 5, 86 2.53 0.0345
Distance 2–4 M 21 8.7 0.76 12 9.5 0.55 5 9.2 0.50 12 9.6 0.84 7 9.9 0.41 0.308 5, 60 5.35 0.0004
F 32 9.0 0.76 18 9.1 0.68 11 9.1 0.81 16 9.4 0.63 10 9.7 0.51 0.101 5, 86 1.94 0.0967
Distance 3–4 M 21 5.8 0.53 12 6.5 0.44 5 6.5 0.42 12 6.3 0.48 7 6.8 0.50 0.356 5, 60 6.63 <0.0001
F 32 6.1 0.75 18 6.2 0.74 11 6.2 0.46 16 6.3 0.54 10 6.5 0.54 0.030 5, 86 0.54 0.7487
1
Prior analysis disclosed significant grade-by-sex interactions, so the tests here are within each sex. R2 is fraction of total variance
explained by the ANOVA model.
F 32 40.4 5.12 18 40.4 4.84 11 40.7 2.58 16 40.0 4.38 5 39.3 4.22 10 39.3 4.17
\132 M 22 63.8 5.34 12 62.6 6.06 5 67.1 2.93 12 63.6 6.58 9 64.9 5.56 7 62.5 5.44 0.041 0.63 0.6737 0.86 0.3541 0.59 0.7111
F 32 63.5 4.76 18 63.9 5.27 11 63.1 4.35 16 61.2 5.34 5 64.3 4.97 10 62.4 9.71
\142 M 21 42.9 7.67 12 42.6 5.47 5 47.3 6.17 12 41.4 3.56 9 41.3 6.03 7 47.2 10.30 0.063 0.93 0.4621 1.92 0.1684 1.00 0.4176
F 32 43.2 6.09 18 42.4 6.29 11 42.1 4.57 16 39.6 4.45 5 43.8 3.43 10 40.9 14.90
is wholly consistent with known size relationships One might suppose that size of Carabelli’s trait would
(delineated in their study), but it may not account for alter cusp arrangements (Table 3). Angles defined by the
the sex difference in the intensity of morphological inte- cusp apices characterize the arrangement of the cusps
gration between traits, as judged by the statistical corre- (see Fig. 2). Since Carabelli’s trait derives from the proto-
lations (i.e., variance accounted for) that are higher in cone, the mesial cusps might be affected more than others,
males than females. notably the variable hypocone composing the talon. In
Of course, studies that find sex differences in tooth fact, this is not the case because all 12 intercusp angles
size typically invoke genes on the sex chromosomes since are statistically independent of Carabelli’s trait (Table 4).
there is no other parsimonious explanation (Tanner et al., This discloses an interesting contrast. On one hand, MD
1959; Ogata and Matsuo, 1992; Ogata et al., 1995). The and BL dimensions are significantly associated with trait
numerous studies by Alvesalo on tooth sizes in people size as are the intercusp distances. In contrast, the angu-
with chromosomal aberrations (e.g., Alvesalo, 1997) lar relationships are not affected, implying that crown
document in the aggregate that genes on both the X and size varies without associated changes in cusp arrange-
Y chromosome affect tooth size. The permanent first ments. Certainly there is considerable patterned variation
molar mineralizes its crown perinatally (Kraus and Jor- in cusp arrangements of this molar (detailed in Harris
dan, 1965), and we may need look no further than the and Dinh, in press), but equally certainly, cusp arrange-
fetal increases in testosterone and estrogen levels (e.g., ments are refractory to size of Carabelli’s trait, including
Tapanainen et al., 1981; Migeon and Wisniewski, 1998) this feature’s cuspal forms.
to account for size differences, though other downstream The statistical and, presumably, biological independence
factors may also be involved. The occurrence of sex dif- between the angular intercusp arrangements and Carabel-
ferences in size during infancy is not surprising, since it li’s complex may be accounted for by the temporal differen-
also accounts for the significant sexual dimorphism in ces in tooth formation. Primary and secondary enamel
deciduous tooth crown sizes (Harris and Lease, 2005) knots develop during the cap and bell stages, respectively,
that form wholly or predominantly in utero (Lunt and when the future occlusal surface is being delimited, as least
Law, 1974). as defined at the IEE. Uneven amelogenesis and intercus-
Moss and Moss-Salentijn (Moss and Moss-Salentijn, pal increases prior to when growth at the IEE is stopped by
1977; Moss, 1978) put forth the insightful argument that dentinogenesis both alter this formative arrangement of
tooth size differences between the sexes might be due to cusps, but these events precede growth of the cervical loop
enhanced enamel thickness in males, but quantitative (Keene, 1982). Peretz et al. (1997, 1998a, b) and Townsend
analyses have shown this supposition to be wrong et al. (2003) also have commented on the modest correla-
(Moore, 1998; Gantt et al., 2001; Harris et al., 2001; tions between dimensions of the occlusal surface and tradi-
Schwartz and Dean, 2005). Instead, the developing tooth tional MD and BL dimensions, implying that different con-
achieves its dimorphic size prior to mineralization, when trol mechanisms are operative. The statistical independ-
the size and shape of the IEE is established, which ence between intercusp angles and all forms of Carabelli’s
becomes the interface between the enamel and dentin trait would seem to epitomize these temporal signaling dif-
(e.g., Arey, 1965). Males have larger tooth crowns ferences.
because the dentin and pulpal components are larger; The quantitative results of the present study disagree
enamel thickness, in turn, is not dimorphic (Harris and with the anecdotal impression of Dahlberg (1951) and
Hicks, 1998; Moore, 1998; Zilberman and Smith, 2001). others who supposed that Carabelli’s cusp encroaches on
One assumes that factors on the Y chromosome act early size of the protocone—or that this accessory cusp deflects
in development to promote mitotic rates or otherwise position of the protocone or other main cusps. The present
increase size of the IEE, so that definitive tooth size is, study is not without precedence, of course, since de Terra
on average, somewhat larger in males (Alvesalo and Por- (1905), Korenhof (1960) and others have shown that crown
tin, 1980; Lahdesmaki and Alvesalo, 2005). There is no size (maximum MD and BL diameters) tend to be larger in
information as yet what causes the enamel knots to be teeth exhibiting a cusp form of Carabelli’s complex.
positioned farther apart in males so that the intercusp Scott (1979) found a positive association between the
distances (and basal occlusal areas) are larger on the av- size of Carabelli’s trait and that of the hypocone on the
erage than in females. first molar. He used ordinal scales for these two features,
One supposition is that distances between the forma- but the results are concordant with the present findings,
tive enamel knots is the same in both sexes and that namely that a large hypocone predisposes for the expres-
sexual dimorphism occurs by enhanced growth in males sion of Carabelli’s trait. Conversely, to paraphrase Scott’s
between the cusps up until size at the dentinoenamel conclusion, hypocone reduction precludes rather than
junction is set by bridging of mineralized tissues (Moss enhances the expression of Carabelli’s trait. Keene
and Applebaum, 1957; Butler, 1967a,b). Observations on (1965, 1968) had found similar associations, also using
the sequential bridging across the various cusps (Ooë, visually-graded morphological scales, namely that Cara-
1981; Kraus and Jordan, 1965) argue against this, belli’s trait is less common on three-cusped first molars
though, because there is no statistical difference between (i.e., those without a hypocone), and when the second
the sexes in cusp arrangements (Harris and Dinh, in molar has three rather than four principal cusps, and
press). when third molars are congenitally absent. These vari-
Kondo and Townsend (2006) emphasized the valuable ous associations collectively reaffirm Garn’s (1977) prin-
point that there probably is no cause-to-effect direction- ciple that larger teeth, within a population sample, have
ality to the coincidence of larger crowns and larger trait a tendency to be more complex morphologically.
expressions. Bigger teeth do not cause trait expression;
instead, formative events that modulate presumptive CONCLUSIONS
cusp positions (i.e., intercusp distances) and overall
crown size are likely also to modulate likelihood of pres- Results from this study suggest the following develop-
ence and expression of Carabelli’s trait. mental scenario: size of Carabelli’s trait (scored on a