Environmental effects on skeletal versus dental development: Using a documented subadult skeletal sample to test a basic assumption in human osteological research

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between measures of skeletal and dental development and socioeconomic factors in a 20th century documented skeletal sample of children from Portugal. The skeletons are of known sex and chronological age, and include other biographic data, such as cause of death. Growth in the length of the long bone is used as a measure of skeletal growth, and schedules of tooth formation are used as a measure of dental development. These two measures of physiological age were compared to chronological age, to assess growth and developmental status. Socioeconomic indicators were obtained from the supporting documentation, and include the occupation of the father and the place of residence, which were used to build a socioeconomic classification based on two groups, one of low and the other of high socioeconomic status. Growth and development status was then compared in these two groups. Results show that socioeconomic differences are much more pronounced in skeletal growth than in dental development. This largely supports the assertion that dental development is buffered against environmental factors relative to skeletal development. However, in this study, skeletal maturation could not be assessed, and findings indicate that dental development can show significant delays at the lower end of the socioeconomic gradient.

Patterns of physical growth and dental development in Jordanian children and adolescents with thalassemia major

“…Garn et al (17) found that the extent of delay in dental development was approximately one-third that of skeletal delay. Evidence indicates that dental development is more closely related to CA than to skeletal, somatic, or sexual-maturity indicators (17)(18)(19). The present results show that dental development in the participants better correlated with CA than with variables for physical growth.…”

“…Studies have shown a low correlation between dental maturity and physical development, which suggests that dental development is less influenced than somatic development by environmental factors (17)(18)(19). Greater delays in skeletal maturation than in dental development were found in children with major abnormalities affecting growth such as anemia, hypothyroidism, hypopituitarism, short familial stature, and cerebral palsy (17,19,33). Garn et al (17) found that the extent of delay in dental development was approximately one-third that of skeletal delay.…”

“…Variations in growth patterns arise from a complex interaction of genetic, racial, and environmental variables. Dentition development is an integral aspect of craniofacial growth, even though it is only marginally related to other maturation processes and is less susceptible to environmental influences (17)(18)(19).…”

Growth problems in a skeletal sample of children abandoned at Santa Casa da Misericórdia, Faro, Portugal (16th–19th centuries)

“…Bogin, 1999;Lewis, 2007;Pinhasi, 2008), several studies on modern populations have shown that low socioeconomic status can significantly affect the growth pattern of a given population. Dental development is less influenced by environment than skeletal development, and is considered the best indicator of chronological age in skeletal remains (Saunders et al, 1993;Cardoso, 2007). Therefore, the difference between skeletal and dental development may provide a measure of growth and health in a population.…”

“…It is generally observed that dental age is the most accurate indicator in the postnatal period (Hoppa and FitzGerald, 1999;Scheuer and Black, 2000;Scheuer, 2002;Brickley, 2004;Cardoso, 2007;Boccone et al, 2010;Elamin and Liversidge, 2013;García-Mancuso, 2014). A possible reason is that the development of part of the dentition takes place before birth, in a protected environment, whereas skeletal growth and development are exposed for a longer period of time to external factors such as nutritional quality, sanitary conditions, socioeconomic status, and possibly climate and altitude (Bogin, 1999;Hoppa and FitzGerald, 1999;Scheuer, 2002;Cardoso and Garcia, 2009).…”