Cementogenesis reviewed: A comparison between human premolars and rodent molars

BACKGROUND: Cementum continues to be the least-known mineralized tissue. Although recent advances in the field of molecular biology have contributed to an understanding of the involvement of molecular factors in cementum formation during development and regeneration, cementogenesis on a cell biological basis is still poorly understood. Virtually nothing is known about cementoblast origin, differentiation, and the cell dynamics during normal development, repair, and regeneration. This review describes the recent findings of cementogenesis on roots of human premolars and opposes them to those of teeth from other mammals, particularly the rodent molar. METHODS: Using light and electron microscopy, light microscopic radioautography, and various measurements, a comprehensive insight into the development and repair of cementum during and after root formation and tooth eruption has been achieved for human premolars. RESULTS: Cementum is a highly responsive mineralized tissue. This biological activity is necessary for root integrity and for bringing and maintaining the tooth in its proper position. With regard to cementum formation and periodontal fiber attachment, considerable species-particularities exist that are mainly based on differences in growth rates and tooth sizes. Since root development and initial cementogenesis last on the average 5-7 years in human premolars, cementum formation in these teeth is characterized by along-lasting phase of prefunctional development, with occurs independent of principal periodontal fiber attachment to the root and which may take 5 years or more. The first molar of the rat, however, is in functional occlusion 3 1/2 weeks after the onset of root formation. Since initial cementum formation and periodontal fiber attachment to the root occur almost at the same time in this tooth, the distinction between cells associated with one or the other process is very difficult to achieve, and cementogenesis cannot be described independent of periodontal fiber attachment to the root. Therefore, the determination of cementoblast origin in the rodent molar may be intricate. CONCLUSIONS: Taking into account these species differences, the current description on the origin and differentiation of cementoblasts is inconsistent and the description of cementogenesis is still incomplete. This review calls into question the currently held concept of cementogenesis and offers a possible alternative.