Species-specific enamel differences in hardness and abrasion resistance between the permanent incisors of cattle (Bos primigenius taurus) and the ever-growing incisors of nutria (Myocastor coypus).
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
05
11
2021
accepted:
25
02
2022
entrez:
17
3
2022
pubmed:
18
3
2022
medline:
4
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hypselodont (ever-growing) teeth of lagomorphs or rodents have higher wear rates (of a magnitude of mm/week), with compensating growth rates, compared to the non-ever-growing teeth of ungulates (with a magnitude of mm/year). Whether this is due to a fundamental difference in enamel hardness has not been investigated so far. We prepared enamel samples (n = 120 per species) from incisors of cattle (Bos primigenius taurus) and nutria (Myocastor coypus, hypselodont incisors) taken at slaughterhouses, and submitted them to indentation hardness testing. Subsequently, samples were split into 4 groups per species (n = 24 per species and group) that were assessed for abrasion susceptibility by a standardized brush test with a control (no added abrasives) and three treatment groups (using fine silt at 4 ±1 μm particle size, volcanic ash at 96 ±9 μm, or fine sand at 166 ±15 μm as abrasives), in which enamel abrasion was quantified as height loss by before-and-after profilometry. The difference in enamel hardness between the species was highly significant, with nutria enamel achieving 78% of the hardness of cattle enamel. In the control and the fine sand group, no enamel height loss was evident, which was attributed to the in vitro system in the latter group, where the sand particles were brushed out of the test slurry by the brushes' bristles. For fine silt and volcanic ash, nutria enamel significantly lost 3.65 and 3.52 times more height than cattle. These results suggest a relationship between enamel hardness and susceptibility to abrasion. However, neither the pattern within the species nor across the species indicated a monotonous relationship between hardness and height loss; rather, the difference was due to qualitative step related to species. Hence, additional factors not measured in this study must be responsible for the differences in the enamel's susceptibility to abrasion. While the in vitro brush system cannot be used to rank abrasive test substances in terms of their abrasiveness, it can differentiate abrasion susceptibility in dental tissue of different animal species. The results caution against considering enamel wear as a similar process across mammals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35298510
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265237
pii: PONE-D-21-35327
pmc: PMC8929658
doi:
Substances chimiques
Sand
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0265237Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Vet Rec. 1999 May 15;144(20):558-61
pubmed: 10371014
Med Sci Monit. 2003 Jan;9(1):BR47-53
pubmed: 12552237
Biochem J. 1948;43(1):99-109
pubmed: 16748377
Science. 2015 Feb 13;347(6223):746-50
pubmed: 25678658
Caries Res. 2007;41(1):56-60
pubmed: 17167260
Monogr Oral Sci. 2014;25:123-42
pubmed: 24993262
J Dent. 2007 Oct;35(10):773-7
pubmed: 17709163
J Exp Zool A Ecol Genet Physiol. 2014 Jun;321(5):283-98
pubmed: 24700486
J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2021 Nov 23;:
pubmed: 34813148
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 07;10(8):e0134788
pubmed: 26252380
J Zoo Wildl Med. 2007 Sep;38(3):433-45
pubmed: 17939353
J Exp Biol. 2020 Feb 12;223(Pt 3):
pubmed: 31953361
J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2021 May 12;:
pubmed: 33982342
J Hum Evol. 1998 Oct-Nov;35(4-5):507-22
pubmed: 9774508
Ecol Evol. 2019 May 09;9(11):6170-6171
pubmed: 31236210
J Exp Zool A Ecol Integr Physiol. 2019 Feb;331(2):139-148
pubmed: 30511369
Ecol Evol. 2018 Oct 09;8(22):11359-11362
pubmed: 30519448
Arch Oral Biol. 1997 Mar;42(3):243-50
pubmed: 9188995
J R Soc Interface. 2013 Jan 09;10(80):20120923
pubmed: 23303220
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28379
pubmed: 22163299
Cell Tissue Res. 1984;238(2):329-37
pubmed: 6509511
Ecol Evol. 2018 May 03;8(11):5355-5368
pubmed: 29938058
Arch Oral Biol. 2009 Sep;54(9):823-9
pubmed: 19608155
J R Soc Interface. 2021 Jul;18(180):20210139
pubmed: 34283942
J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2015 Jun;99(3):591-604
pubmed: 25041439
J Struct Biol. 2014 Apr;186(1):38-48
pubmed: 24556576
Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2021 Feb;304(2):425-436
pubmed: 32314555
J Dent. 2008 Jan;36(1):74-9
pubmed: 18045766
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Sep 8;117(36):22264-22273
pubmed: 32839331
Ecol Evol. 2018 Oct 09;8(22):11363-11367
pubmed: 30519449
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Apr 9;21(1):183
pubmed: 33836740
Clin Oral Investig. 2009 Dec;13(4):473-8
pubmed: 19214602
Proc Biol Sci. 2019 Oct 9;286(1912):20191921
pubmed: 31594498