Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40987335›Full record

ReviewBiology letters2025

Rethinking thecodonty: the influence of two centuries of comparative dental anatomy on our understanding of tooth evolution.

Gabriel Mestriner, Gregory F Funston, Júlio C A Marsola, Sterling J Nesbitt, Max C Langer, David C Evans, Aaron R H LeBlanc

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gabriel MestrinerBiologia, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-5542-1772
Gregory F FunstonRoyal Ontario Museum Department of Natural History, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3430-4398
Júlio C A MarsolaUniversidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná - Campus Dois Vizinhos, Dois Vizinhos, Paraná, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-5290-7884
Sterling J NesbittGeosciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7017-1652
Max C LangerBiologia, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-1009-4605
David C EvansEcology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9608-6635
Aaron R H LeBlancFaculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2497-1296

Funding

Division of Earth SciencesFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo FAPESP Number: 2020/07997-4National Geographic SocietyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVanier-Banting Comm.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

'Thecodont' refers to teeth implanted in sockets within the jaw, a condition traditionally associated with living mammals and crocodylians, which also coincidentally have teeth attached by ligaments to the socket walls (gomphosis). For over a century, the bony periodontium of many other amniotes has been described as a single tissue, 'bone of attachment', causing confusion over dental tissue homology. The conventional definitions of 'thecodonty' exclude species with fused teeth ('ankylothecodonts'), implying a fundamental difference between mammals, crocodylians and most other vertebrates. However, the stereotypically 'thecodont' attachment tissues have been discovered in representatives of all major amniote clades, showing that gomphosis and ankylosis likely stem from heterochronic changes in the timing and extent of cementum and alveolar bone mineralization. This challenges (i) previous hypotheses regarding the evolution of the amniote periodontium, (ii) the 'bone of attachment' paradigm, and (iii) the significance of 'thecodonty'. We suggest a new nomenclatural approach that incorporates recent histological and evolutionary research and divides thecodonty into anatomical categories to clarify their origin and evolution. We propose the terms anisothecodont and isothecodont to denote, respectively, asymmetric and symmetric implantation of teeth in their sockets. Regardless of the geometry of the connection, we propose using ankylosis and gomphosis to denote the mode of tooth attachment.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionToothAnatomy, ComparativeAnimalsalveolar boneankylosisankylothecodontbone of attachmentcellular cementumgomphosisperiodontal ligamentthecodonttooth attachmenttooth implantation

Identifiers

PMID40987335
PMCPMC12457032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.