This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot(talk | contribs) at 07:38, 12 January 2024(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Dentistry}}, {{Biology}}, {{WikiProject Anatomy}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Animal anatomy}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 07:38, 12 January 2024 by Cewbot(talk | contribs)(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Dentistry}}, {{Biology}}, {{WikiProject Anatomy}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Animal anatomy}}.)
This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
Tooth is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dizzle32.
incisors, canines, pre-molars, molars, which are "cheek teeth"
anatomy of tooth, gums, circulatory system and nervous system in mouth/teeth
tooth/mouth conditions and problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.68.15 (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tooth (plural teeth) are small, calcified, whitish structures found in the jaws
Clearly this should be changed to "A tooth is a small, calcified, whitish structure. . . " because, it's you know, singular.
“Early fish such as the thelodonts had teeth for scales, suggesting that the origin of teeth was scales which were retained in the mouth.” - scales for teeth perhaps? Anihl (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's closer to accurate as is - early scales were heavily ossified, with dentine at the main support and a layer of almost-but-not-quite enamel. A subset of these were modified to become teeth. It's pretty poorly phrases as it is. I'll give it a quick edit, see if I cant improve it. HCA (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canines: In dogs, the teeth are less likely than humans to form dental cavities because of the very high pH of dog saliva, which prevents enamel from demineralizing
This seems inaccurate, despite it supposedly being sourced from a 1992 book. The pH level of sugar is neutral, but isn't it more accurate to state that dental cavities are a result of sugars instead of low, neutral or high pH level? 71.112.173.40 (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out it's right, at least according to the source I added. And the pH of sugar isn't the issue, it's the pH of the salivary fluid, which can either retard or enhance bacterial growth. HCA (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: as has long been suspected, teeth are, at least in the case of the 400-million-year-old fish Romundina stellina and in all likelihood generally, specialised scales.
Note that the linked article doesn't mention scales explicitly, but the teeth of Romundina stellina are scale-like in structure and Philip Donoghue has said elsewhere that ‘the earliest teeth were like our own - but also structured like body scales in primitive fishes. This supports the view that teeth evolved from scales, which arose much earlier in vertebrate evolution.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.82 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look right. The idea that teeth are homologous with scales, and that teeth came from scales, has been around since the 19th century. We shouldn't present this as a "gee-whiz" new idea. On the other hand, there is also an ongoing debate about which came first, teeth or scales, known as inside-out vs. outside-in. Meanwhile there's been mounting evidence that teeth/scales evolved independently on several occasions, that it doesn't matter which came first because either one can so quickly and easily morph into the other. Keeping in mind that the flexible proteinaceous scales found in today's fish are something new. Paleozoic fish scales are made of either bone covered with skin or dentin covered with enamel. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering in many animals from octopuses to hippos to saber-toothed cats and countless other, individual teeth can be very large in relation to any other organ even, it's not really appropriate to describe teeth in general as small in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:183:38C0:8591:B320:52B4:D00B (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Through the course of our rat specimen dissection, we could potentially elaborate on the vasculature and other gross anatomical elements of rodent teeth, as compared to human dental anatomy.Shawnbrookins (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the term hypselodont to the rodent section and added a new citation. I've also edited and added sentences in the rodent incisor section. I plan on adding my own images of the rodent upper and lower incisors in the future once I have properly labeled them. Dizzle32 (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added more images of the top incisors from the Rattus rattus specimen. Also rearranged the images of the rodent incisors to fit within the Rodent section only. Dizzle32 (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add the following cleanup template and links to the first paragraph of the "Origin" section:
Before:
Teeth are assumed to have evolved either from ectoderm denticles that folded and integrated into the mouth (outside–in theory), or from endoderm pharyngeal teeth (primarily formed in the pharynx of jawless vertebrates) (inside–out theory). In addition, there is another theory stating that neural crest gene regulatory network, and neural crest-derived ectomesenchyme are the key to generate teeth (with any epithelium either ectoderm or endoderm).
After:
{{Technical|section|date=August 2021}}
Teeth are assumed to have evolved either from [[ectoderm]] [[Denticle (tooth feature)|denticles]] that folded and integrated into the mouth (outside–in theory), or from [[endoderm]] [[Pharynx|pharyngeal]] teeth (primarily formed in the [[pharynx]] of [[jawless vertebrates]]) (inside–out theory). In addition, there is another theory stating that [[neural crest]] [[gene regulatory network]], and neural crest-derived [[ectomesenchyme]] are the key to generate teeth (with any [[epithelium]], either ectoderm or endoderm).
Partly done: I didn't add the technical template, as one can only lower the level of language so much when discussing the evolutionary origins of something. I appreciate all the wikilinking though. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The evolutionary origins of teeth aren't clear, and the question is highly debated.[1] The two main hypotheses are:[1]
That teeth originate from scales (of the same sort as sharks currently have, known as dermal denticles or placoid scales). This theory is mainly supported by circumstantial evidence, for example teeth and shark scales having a very similar structure, and evidence since the late 20th century has challenged this theory.[1] This is known as the "outside–in" theory.[1]
That teeth developed independently. This is known as the "inside–out" theory.[1] Evidence included teeth and scales coming from different germ layers (with teeth requiring endoderm), but that was later shown not to necessarily be the case. There is also much evidence against this theory.[1]
The genes governing tooth development in mammals are homologous to those involved in the development of fish scales.[2] Fossil studies of the extinct fish Romundina stellina showed that the teeth and scales were made of the same tissues.[3]
Not done for now: Would it be possible for you to incorporate another source into this edit? I'm not sure relying on one source (Donoghue) for 7 different claims is ideal. RFZYNSPYtalk18:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the lead image isn't the most appropriate for the article, as teeth are only a part of the image. Most of the image is just a chimp face, which, although, a good picture, doesn't have too much to do with teeth.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dizzle32.
Partly done: I didn't add the technical template, as one can only lower the level of language so much when discussing the evolutionary origins of something. I appreciate all the wikilinking though. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: Would it be possible for you to incorporate another source into this edit? I'm not sure relying on one source (Donoghue) for 7 different claims is ideal. RFZYNSPY talk 18:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)