Dust in the wind: How climate variables and volcanic dust affect rates of tooth wear in Central American howling monkeys.

OBJECTIVES: Two factors have been considered important contributors to tooth wear: dietary abrasives in plant foods themselves and mineral particles adhering to ingested food. Each factor limits the functional life of teeth. Cross-population studies of wear rates in a single species living in different habitats may point to the relative contributions of each factor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examine macroscopic dental wear in populations of Alouatta palliata (Gray, 1849) from Costa Rica (115 specimens), Panama (19), and Nicaragua (56). The sites differ in mean annual precipitation, with the Panamanian sites receiving more than twice the precipitation of those in Costa Rica or Nicaragua (∼3,500 mm vs. ∼1,500 mm). Additionally, many of the Nicaraguan specimens were collected downwind of active plinian volcanoes. Molar wear is expressed as the ratio of exposed dentin area to tooth area; premolar wear was scored using a ranking system. RESULTS: Despite substantial variation in environmental variables and the added presence of ash in some environments, molar wear rates do not differ significantly among the populations. Premolar wear, however, is greater in individuals collected downwind from active volcanoes compared with those living in environments that did not experience ash-fall. DISCUSSION: Volcanic ash seems to be an important contributor to anterior tooth wear but less so in molar wear. That wear is not found uniformly across the tooth row may be related to malformation in the premolars due to fluorosis. A surge of fluoride accompanying the volcanic ash may differentially affect the premolars as the molars fully mineralize early in the life of Alouatta.

A revised classification for direct tooth-colored restorative materials

Composite resins and glass-ionomer cements were introduced to dentistry in the 1960s and 1970s, respectively. Since then, there has been a series of modifications to both materials as well as the development other groups claiming intermediate characteristics between the two. The result is a confusion of materials leading to selection problems. While both materials are tooth-colored, there is a considerable difference in their properties, and it is important that each is used in the appropriate situation. Composite resin materials are esthetic and now show acceptable physical strength and wear resistance. However, they are hydrophobic, and therefore more difficult to handle in the oral environment, and cannot support ion migration. Also, the problems of gaining long-term adhesion to dentin have yet to be overcome. On the other hand, glass ionomers are water-based and therefore have the potential for ion migration, both inward and outward from the restoration, leading to a number of advantages. However, they lack the physical properties required for use in load-bearing areas. A logical classification designed to differentiate the materials was first published by McLean et al in 1994, but in the last 15 years, both types of material have undergone further research and modification. This paper is designed to bring the classification up to date so that the operator can make a suitable, evidence-based, choice when selecting a material for any given situation.