ArticleAnatomical science international2025
Comparative dental morphology of hamsters and Guinea pigs through µ-CT scanning and stereology.
Article in Anatomical science international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to elucidate the morphometric and morphological details of teeth in the Syrian hamster (Mesocricetus auratus, Waterhouse, 1839) and guinea pig (Cavia porcellus, Linnaeus, 1758) using µ-CT and stereology (n = 5). Notably, the hamsters exhibited distinctive roots in their cheek teeth, in contrast to the guinea pigs, where the tooth body extended as a dental root into the alveolar socket, making anatomical diagnosis challenging. The first and second cheek teeth of the hamster had four roots, but the last one had three roots. The hamster incisor teeth had a more voluminous pulp cavity compared to those of guinea pigs. While the ratio differences of arch parameters and enamel thickness were not statistically significant (P ≥ 0.05). The enamel layer in guinea pig incisor teeth were significantly thicker than that in the hamster teeth (P ≤ 0.05). Regarding the dentine-tooth width, the difference between the upper incisor teeth of the hamster and guinea pig was significant (P ≤ 0.05). The ratio of pulp-tooth volume in all incisor teeth of the hamster was significantly higher than that in the guinea pig's teeth (P ≤ 0.05) indicating hamsters might have better regenerative dental health despite dietary variances. These insights contribute to deeper understanding of the evolutionary adaptations in rodent dentition and suggest improved information and methodologies for translational dental studies and selecting more appropriate animal models in dental research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41252122What 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.