Medical Hypotheses 20: 103-107, 1986

ODONTOGENIC POLARITY AND BUTLER'S FIELD THEORY

J.A. Kieser, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry,

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

ABSTRACT

Tooth shape potential resides in those ectomesenchymal cells that

colonise the presumptive jaws prior to the commencement of odonto-
genesis. Support for Butler's field theory as applied to the human
dentition hinges on the observation that distal teeth within each
morphogenic class are the most variable. This variability, it
has been argued, reflects a decrease in the concentration of field
substance with increased distance from the polar teeth. In contrast
to the above, it is suggested here that tooth size variability
should be related to the length of time spent in the soft tissue
stage prior to calcification. It is argued that a long soft tissue
stage will result in a variable phenotype and vice versa. Odontometric
variability of distal teeth is thus unrelated to morphogenetic
field concentrations and hence fails to support Butler's field theory.

INTRODUCTION

On the basis of his observations on the patterns of dental morpho-

differentiation in fossil Cenozoic mammals, Butler (1) postulated
that the mammalian dentition may be divided along an antero-posterior
axis into three morphogenic fields 'I...tooth rudiments may be
regarded as implanted at intervals in a continuous morphogenetic
field, and becoming determined to develop in different ways according
to their position in the field", p2. Subsequently, Dahlberg (2)
applied this field concept to the process of human odontogenesis,
identifying four morphogenic fields in each jaw; incisor, canine,
premolar and molar. A field was seen along the broad lines defined
by Huxley and de Beer (3): "The determination and localisation
of organ-rudiments is revealed sooner or later by the presence
of chemo-differentiated material or morphogenetic substances in
certain places which constitute what may be called fields ...'I.~221.
Describing an odontogenic field as a sphere of influence, Dahlberg
(2) further suggested that its effect would diminish with increased
distance from the most stable or polar tooth within each field.
Considerable support for this view came from Dahlberg's own observation
that teeth at the distal ends of morphological classes tended to be

103
more variable in size and in frequency of various traits than their
more mesial neighbours (4). Since the classic studies of Butler
and Dahlberg there has been continuing and growing interest in
the patterns of odontogenic polarity and their application to Butler's
field theory. Although a large number of investigators have suggested
that their results are generally supportive of the field concept
(5 - 15), there are those who have questioned its validity (16 - 21).
Certainly the assumptions underlying the hypothesis seem questionable.
For example, Gingerich and Ryan (22) have shown that the second
molars in Indriidae are less variable that the first molars even
though they develop and erupt later. Also, using coefficients
of variation with sex influences removed (20), Kieser et al have
shown a reversal of the expected variability patterns inthe mesio-
distal dimensions of upper central and lateral incisors and the
buccolingual dimensions of the mandibular molars in Lengua Indians
(17). Interestingly, Harris and Nweeia (8) also reported a less
variable lateral upper incisor in the Ticuna Indians, a population
that showed an unusual lack of sexual dimorphism in tooth size.
On the basis of these findings it is argued that distal member
variability is not supportive of Butler's field theory as applied
to the human dentition.

ODONTOGENESIS AND ODONTOMETRIC VARIABILITY

Kollar and Lumsden (23) have divided odontogenesis into three main
phases: initiation, morphogenesis and cytodifferentiation. It
is a well documented fact that tooth development involves the inter-
action of neural crest derived ectomesenchyme and the oral epithelium
(24, 25). What the factos are that determine tooth size and shape
however, has been the subject of considerable dispute. Butler
(26, 27) has suggested that differences between the teeth within
a dentition reflect the reaction of ectomesenchymal cells to the
influence of fields into which these cells migrate. Osborn, on
the other hand, proposed a clonal model that views mesenchymal
cells as being predetermined by the time they enter the jaws (28).
In agreement with Osborn and with Schwartz (29), it is proposed
here that ectomesenchymal stem cells enter the presumptive jaws
already differentiated into incisor, canine and molar cell masses.
Rather than attributing the phenotypic variability of the tooth
to this position within a morphogenetic field, it is suggested that
variability may be attributable to the length of time that the
tooth spends in its soft tissue stage. Variability hence becomes
an epigenetic phenomenon, unrelated to field substance concentration.

EMPIRICAL SUPPORT

That the environmental variances of teeth are intimately linked

to the relative lengths of the developmental period prior to the
commencement of calcification was first suggested by Mizoguchi (30,
31). On the basis of his observations on tooth size in Japanese,
he was able to show a proportional or parallel relation between
the length of the pre-calcification stage and the coefficient of
variation (32). Following Mizoguchi, the coefficients of variation
for the mesiodistal diameters of male caucasoids (19) together

104
with their respective percentages of time spent in the soft tissue
stage, were plotted (Figure 1). Statistically significant levels
of Spearman's rank order correlation coefficient (rs maxilla = 0.78;
rs mandible = 0.61) allow one to conclude that there is in fact a
close correlation between time spent in the tissue stage and phenn-
typic variation of the end product.
CONCLUSION

The data presented here certainly do not support the hypothesis

that the position of a tooth within a field determines its variability,
rather it seems to be the length of time spent in the soft tissue
stage which is significant. It is felt however, that a qualification
should be placed on the above conclusion; an association or correlation
of measures even if it is statistically significant does still
not prescribe a cause (33).

Figure 1. A plot of the percentage time spent in the soft tissue

stage and of the coefficients of variation for maxillarv
and mandibular teeth of male caucasoids (mesiodistal
dimension).

REFERENCES

1. Butler PM. Studies of the mammalian dentition. Differentiation

of the postcanine dentition. Proc Zoo1 Sot Lond B 109: 1, 1939.
2. Dahlberg AA. The changing dentition of man. J Am Dent Assoc
32: 676, 1945.
3. Huxley JS, de Beer GR. Elements of Experimental Embryology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1934.
4. Saunders SR, Mayhall JT. Developmental patterns of human dental
morphological traits. Arch Oral Biol 27: 45, 1382.
5. Henderson AM, Greene DL. Dental field theory: an application
to primate evolution. J Dent Res 54: 344, 1975.

105
 6. van Valen L. Growth fields in the dentition of peromyscus.
Evolution 16: 272, 1961.
7. Lombardi AV. A factor analysis of morphogenetic fields in
the human dentition. ~203 in Development, Function and Evolution
of Teeth. (Butler PM, Joysey KA, eds.) Academic Press, New
York, 1978.
8. Harris EF, Nweeia MT. Dental asymmetry as a measure of environ-
mental stress in the Ticuna Indians of Colombia. Am J Phys
Anthrop 53: 133, 1980.
9. Suarez BK, Williams BJ. Dental growth fields and premolar
morphology. J Dent Res 52: 632, 1973.
10. Alvesalo L, Tigerstedt PMA. Heritabilities of human tooth
dimensions. Hereditas 77: 311, 1974.
11. Kieser JA. An odontometric analysis of the early Griqua
dentition. Anthrop Anz 43: 51, 1985.
12. Garn SM, Lewis AB, Kerewsky RS. Shape similarities throughout
the dentition. J Dent Res 46: 1481, 1967.
13. Henderson AM. Dental field theory: an application to primate
evolution. PhD dissertation, University Colorado, Boulder, 1975.
14. Suarez BK, Bernor R. Growth fields in the dentition of the
gorilla. Folia Primatol 18: 356, 1972.
15. Potter RHY, Yu PL, Dahlberg AA, Merritt AD, Conneally PM.
Genetic studies of tooth size factors in Pima Indian families.
Am J Hum Genet 20: 89, 1968.
16. Morris DH. The anthropological utility of dental morphology.
University Microfilms International, Michigan, 1965.
17. Kieser JA, Groeneveld HT, Preston CB. An odontometric analysis
of the Lengua Indian dentition. Hum Biol (in press), 1985.
18. Kieser JA, Groeneveld HT, Preston CB. A metric analysis of
the South African caucasoid dentition. J Dent Assoc S Afr
40: 121, 1985.
19. Biggerstaff RH. Morphological variations for the permanent
mandibular first molars in human monozygotic and dizygotic
twins. Arch Oral Biol 15: 721, 1970.
20. Gingerich PD, Schoeninger MJ. Patterns of tooth size variability
in the dentition of primates. Am J Phys Anthrop 51: 457, 1979.
21. Kieser JA. Wave superpositioning and the initiation of tooth
morphogenesis: an application of the Bandwidth Theorem.
Med Hypoth 14: 249, 1984.
22. Gingerich PD, Ryan AS. Dental and cranial variation in living
Indriidae. Primates 20: 141, 1979.
23. Kollar EJ, Lumsden AGS. Tooth morphogenesis: the role of
the innervation during induction and pattern formation. J
Biol Buccale 7: 49, 1979.
24. Kollar EJ, Baird GE. Tissue interaction in embryonic mouse
tooth germs. J Embryo1 Exp Morph 24: 173, 1970.
25. Miller WA. The dentitions of tabby and crinkled mice. P99
in Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth. (Butler
PM, Joysey KA, eds.) Academic Press, New York, 1978.
26. Butler PM. The ontogeny of mammalian heterodonty. J Biol
Buccale 6: 217, 1978.
27. Butler PM. Some problems of the ontogeny of tooth patterns.
p44 in Teeth: Form, Function and Evolution. (Kurt&n B, ed.)
Columbia University Press, New York, 1982.

106
28. Osborn JW. Morphogenetic gradients: fields versus clones.
~171 in Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth. (Butler
PM, Joysey KA, eds.) Academic Press, New York, 1978.
29. Swartz JH. Morphological approach to heterodonty and homology.
pl23 in Teeth: Form, Function and Evolution (Kurt&r B, ed.)
Columbia University Press, New York, 1982.
30. Mizoguchi Y. Factor analysis of environmental variation in
the permanent dentition. Bull Nat Sci MUS Tokyo D 6: 29, 1980.
31. Mizoguchi Y. Influences of the earlier developing teeth upon
the later developing teeth. Bull Nat Sci Mus Tokyo D 9: 33, 1983.
32. Mizoguchi Y. Confirmatory factor analysis by maximum likelyhood
method with respect to the influence of the developmental
periods upon the size of teeth. Rep Min Educ, Japan, 1983.
33. Gould SJ, Garwood RA. Levels of integration in mammalian
dentitions: an analysis of correlations in Nesophontes micrus
and Oryzomys conesi. Evolution 23: 276, 1969.

107