A quantitative analysis of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) juvenile dentition as a tool to assess the effect of diet

Abstract

Gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata Linnaeus, 1758 (Perciformes, Sparidae), is an important aquaculture species in the Mediterranean Sea basin. Yet, quantitative data on its dentition under standard farming conditions are currently lacking. It is furthermore unknown if the dentition can adapt to food of different sizes. Here, we describe the lower jaw dentition of juvenile S. aurata fed a standard pellet size (4 mm), and present a detailed analysis of eleven representative teeth. Overall, the number of teeth showed large individual variation, yet not significantly related to fish length. Considerable left-right differences were observed, without clear side dominance. We also assessed the influence of feeding S. aurata a smaller (2 mm) or larger (6 mm) pellet size. Four months of feeding with different pellet sizes did not cause detectable differences in total tooth number on the dentaries at the time of harvest, nor in size of the teeth assumed to be most relevant in food processing. If and how different pellet sizes may nevertheless affect digestion, and eventually fish health, is subject for further studies.

The incidence of different pellet size on growth, gut evacuation, feed digestibility and feed waste in gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata)

“…Data of dentition analysis recently conducted on seabream, showed that large pellet size tended to produce fish with the lowest number of teeth on the dentary, while specimens fed with small pellet size presented the smallest teeth area. However, no significant differences were found in general dentition among fish fed with the three different pellet sizes (de Azevedo et al, 2021).…”

Continuous tooth replacement: what can teleost fish teach us?

“…Finally, a puzzling question is how to explain tooth replacement where one large replacement tooth replaces two or more smaller ones, as is observed in species with large molariform teeth [e.g. in the cichlid Astatoreochromis alluaudi and the sea bream Sparus aurata (Huysseune, 1995; de Azevedo et al ., 2021)]. We currently do not know if replacement is repressed in one predecessor, if one germ develops at the expense of the other, or if both predecessors are replaced nevertheless and teeth simply occupy an enlarged surface due to expansion of the bone surface.…”

“…Classical studies about tooth replacement are mainly interested in the question of how patterns are set up (timing and sequence of formation of first‐generation teeth), whether these patterns are maintained, and how fast the teeth cycle. These studies utilised traditional approaches, such as examination of preserved material (Motta, 1984), wax impressions (Berkovitz & Moore, 1974, 1975), serial sections and two‐dimensional or three‐dimensional reconstructions (Berkovitz, 1977 b ; Berkovitz & Shellis, 1978; Abduweli et al ., 2014), cleared and stained preparations (Lawson & Manly, 1973; Van der heyden, Wautier & Huysseune, 2001; Trapani, Yamamoto & Stock, 2005; de Azevedo et al ., 2021), scanning electron micrographs (Motta, 1984), radiographs (Berkovitz, 1975; Berkovitz & Shellis, 1978; Witten, Hall & Huysseune, 2005; Huysseune, Hall & Witten, 2007), and injection of fluorochromes (Bergot, 1975; Huysseune, 1989; Abduweli et al ., 2014; Ellis et al ., 2015) (Fig. 1A–D).…”