Comparative genetic variance and heritability of dental occlusal variables in U.S. and Northwest Indian twins
- 1 July 1986
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in American Journal of Physical Anthropology
- Vol. 70 (3), 293-299
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330700304
Abstract
Genetic variance analysis of 15 dental occlusal and arch variables is based on cross‐cultural comparison of twin variances (U.S. Whites and Northwest Indian Punjabis). Both samples exhibit high genetic versus environmental partition of variance. However, monozygotes and dizygotes have unequal variance, which invalidates conventional genetic variance ratios. The pattern of environmental biases on the zygosities is quite different in the two groups. Revised estimates that acknowledge zygosity heterogeneity (hence unequal environmental influences) are generally much lower for occlusal traits, whereas arch size measurements are unaffected.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- An epidemiologic transition in dental occlusion in world populationsAmerican Journal of Orthodontics, 1984
- A family study of anthropometric traits in a Punjabi community: II. An investigation of familial transmissionAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1984
- A family study of anthropometric traits in a Punjabi community: I. Introduction and familial correlationsAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1984
- A study of occlusion and arch widths in familiesAmerican Journal of Orthodontics, 1980
- Dominance and Environmental Variances: Their Effect on Heritabilities Estimated from Twin DataHuman Heredity, 1977
- A twin study of dental dimension. I. Discordance, asymmetry, and mirror imageryAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1976
- Genetic Analysis of Dermatoglyphic Patterns in TwinsHuman Heredity, 1975
- The estimation of genetic variance from twin dataBehavior Genetics, 1970
- Malocclusion and civilizationAmerican Journal of Orthodontics, 1961
- The relative effect of nature and nurture influences on twin differences.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1929