Molar In Bone Somehow Attached To Fossilized Mass W/ Veins?

[parrbarrs]

I cannot thank you all enough for taking the time to help me figure this thing out. A truly great group you have here.

Here are the requested tooth measurements as well as full-res photos of the top and bottom:

Edited April 13, 2012 by parrbarrs

[araucaria1959]

It is too small compared to a permanent human lower molar (mesio-distal length: usually between 10,5 und 12 mm with some differences because of ethnicity and gender; bucco-lingual length also within that span, even a little bit more). However, the tooth is worn, but this does not have much effect on the mesio-distal and bucco-lingual diameter, because the maximal circumference of a molar is not on the occlusal surface but below it. The enamel is very thick (compared to the diameter of the tooth), thicker than can be expected for a worn first or second molar.

Furthermore, the second new picture shows that it is not worn as much as is suggested by the first picture. The "height" (crown + root length)

of the tooth is also small, though the "upper" root is not complete because of the missing (or resorbed) end. Anyway, the tooth is outside the range of first or second upper or lower molars of humans. It can still be a small ("microdontic") third molar or a deciduous molar.

Bone tumors may also occur in young people and even children; in contrast to other tumors, their incidende doesn't rise with increasing age. Noone would let a tumor grow until that size nowadays; however, in historic times it may have been plausibel for a tumor to become so large until being resected.

So the case (human or non-human) remains unsolved, but I don't know any recent animal with teeth of that morphology and size.Furthermore, the specimen seems to be cut (resected). If it was an animal, an ancient "veterinary" must have done that procedure. So only a few animal species may apply (as already mentioned: horse, cow, dog, cat, pig), and none of them has teeth similar to the one which is discussed here.

How many roots has the tooth? Additional pictures from lateral views on the tooth (all four lateral surfaces) may help. If you find the x-ray, it would be wonderful. Benign tumors only rarely cause resorption of roots (and the tumor looks benign, e.g. osteoma); however, if it is a deciduous tooth, the roots would be more prone to resorption since they must be able to get resorbed by the up-moving crowns of the permanent tooth, though the resorption in this case doesn't look to be caused by a permanent tooth (premolar) (in that case, the resorption would cause an oblique surface at the resorbed end of the root, but with the maximal resorption at the inner and not at the outer side as seems to be the case here). Possibly the surface of the root has been damaged during the resection procedure; it looks damaged in the lower half.

araucaria1959

[RickNC]

Dermoid cyst?

[araucaria1959]

Here is a picture from a dermoid cyst (teratoma) with teeth:

http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Ovarian_teratoma.jpg/220px-Ovarian_teratoma.jpg&imgrefurl=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermoidzyste&h=165&w=220&sz=13&tbnid=2XWsB04WmMyiqM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddermoidzyste%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=dermoidzyste&docid=ZZdz8p-KJbitVM&hl=de&sa=X&ei=aUmJT4SwFovS4QSNsezXCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ9QEwAQ&dur=312

However, the tooth we are discussing here is worn, i.e. it must have been "under function" for some time. It seems improbable that the occlusal surface had been broken off; the cleft is rectangular to that surface. Furthermore, the roots are surrounded by a periodontal space (the fissure between the roots and the bone), i.e. normal periodontal tissue must have been present around the tooth.

araucaria1959