ReviewBiology letters2025
Rethinking thecodonty: the influence of two centuries of comparative dental anatomy on our understanding of tooth evolution.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A description of dental microanatomy and implantation geometry in Chamaeleonidae.Journal of anatomy · 2026Article
- The histology of rhynchosaur (Diapsida, Archosauromorpha) ankylothecodonty.Journal of anatomy · 2026Article
- Rethinking thecodonty: the influence of two centuries of comparative dental anatomy on our understanding of tooth evolution.Biology letters · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.