Just wondering (following another thread) why is it that toy breeders seem not to be worried about the fact that the teeth are often awful in toy breeds. We often bemoan the fact that BYB etc.. pay scant regard to such things as Hips and Elbows etc.. but Many will happily accept the fact that toys teeth are bad/over/undershot, missing overcrowded etc.. It seems to have become an accepted fact of life and is no longer considered a fault. Now I do realize that toys have less need of a full and functioning set of teeth as maybe a dog who needs them for his work such as the guarding breeds. But surely even toy breeds should be able to expect a lifetime of  problem free teeth, after all they may be little but they still have to eat chew and like big dogs would no doubt enjoy a game of tug or fetch without the worry of poor teeth.
Is it yet another fact of breeding for the look i.e. smaller head, shorter jaw that causes the problems, a case of breeding to win at all cost or is there some other reason why this should be acceptable when the wrinkles of a Neo or the eye problems in a Clumber are heavily penalized now by the KC vet checks ?
Personally I think it must have some effect on the quality of life of some of these dogs who spend a lot of time being sedated at the vets to have teeth removed or cleaned up. Partially because with poor dentition and misaligned teeth they can only eat soft food and are unable to eat a diet that would help to keep teeth in good condition.
No disrespect to those of you who breed and show the toys, just wondering if maybe it is time to look at mouths in the show rings and begin to try and improve what has become an acceptable fault.
Aileen

Well personally I don't get it, as I never have had a puppy with a bad mouth and would not breed from a dog with a bad mouth. My mentor is very very hot on this. The condition of the teeth however is almost impossible to keep as good as in a big dog, as the teeth are so tiny. Even my Cavalier have teeth about 5-6 times bigger than my Papillons.

I never keep a pup with an undershot jaw, and I can say that my mentor doesn't either. I certainly wouldn't breed from them. But they still make excellent pets.  I can add, as Marianne says, that the teeth on a Chi are very, very tiny.  They have to be, to get the same amount of teeth as a Rottie in that space.

I do use dental equipment, and descale the teeth, but had one dog that I couldn't reach back far enough with such a small mouth.  I mentioned this to my vet, and he didn't see the problem until I booked the dog in for a dental.  My vet said afterwards "It's really hard to get to those back teeth!"  So it is a fact.

As most people know, my toys are brought up with Collies (Border an Beardie) so are not snappy yappy little tykes.  They are given bones just like the Collies.  Unfortunately, you can't force feed them, and I have several that just won't touch a bone.  These, I have no choice but to scrape off tartar.  But they do have a set of fully functioning teeth.  The ones that won't use a bone at any price, often have retained puppy teeth.  Yes, I do have retained teeth removed by my vet at 6 months.  It would only result in an extremely overcrowded mouth if I didn't.

My Chi's (just speaking for my own here) don't seem to have the same tugging interest as a Collie.  Although playing fetch is enjoyed.  If you could see mine run with my Border Collie (who runs like the wind) it is a joy to watch.  I do the best I can to keep such tiny mouths healthy. 

I would venture to say that the mere fact of miniaturisation and infantalisation (causing retained teeth) is bound to have a negative effect in a functioning canine, where the blueprint was never designed to be such a small animal.

In the flat faced ones especially, (which quite a few toys are) teeth are bound to be compromised on mechanics alone.

I think any major departure from the natural blueprint will have some negative effect on the canine.  this in many breeds is alleviated or prevents simply by good management and care.  This would include excessive or unnatural coat (the natural one being a double weather proof coat), floppy ears, short legs, short muzzles, very small or very large size, etc.

In Rabbits, the natural shaped and coated English that I bred, not a lot larger than their wild forbears, rarely had malocluded mouths.

Dwarfs on the other hand, with their tennis ball shape heads and miniature size often have teeth that do not line up and need trimming as they do not wear down naturally.  Dwarf Lops are more likely to be the same than their French Lop ancestors (they were developed by crossing Dwarfs with French).

Rex Rabbits (where the guard hair is shortened or almost completely absent giving the thick velvet coat is the result of a mutation.  You have to be very careful to provide deep and soft bedding as they will wear the fur on their feet away, causing sores and infection. 

Angora's are often kept on wire, and have their Hay fed in tied up twists and in full coat they need careful grooming.

Albinos where primarily bred so that their pelts after slaughter could be easily dyed to the required colour, and their compromised poor eyesight was not an issue in an animal originally bred for meat and fur.

I never keep a pup with an undershot jaw, and I can say that my mentor doesn't either. I certainly wouldn't breed from them. But they still make excellent pets.

But is not breeding from a dog with a undershot (unless its a pug, boxer, bulldog etc) or overshot jaw enough?

All veterinary writings on this subject put this as a genetic/hereditary fault which occurs when both the sire and dam have the recessive gene responsible even though they don't have obvious malocclusions.  So, under the pronciples of genetics some off-spring will be carriers like their parents even though they don't show the fault,  some pups will be unaffected and some affected.  So none of the other puppies in the litter should be bred from as they might be a 'carrier' just as easily as they can be the 'unaffected' and the parents shouldn't be bred from again once its known that they are carriers and produce this fault. 

> So none of the other puppies in the litter should be bred from as they might be a 'carrier' just as easily as they can be the 'unaffected' and the parents shouldn't be bred from again once its known that they are carriers and produce this fault.

Totally 100% agree, and I have been working to breed a very good line for years.  Unfortunately I don't see everyone spending their lives improving breeding stock.  Seems to me, some folk will breed from very good type, even knowing that a section will be needed.  I don't support this, and am in the minority.  So however much we rehash the subject, there are going to be people that want something for the show ring at any price.

> All veterinary writings on this subject put this as a genetic/hereditary fault which occurs when both the sire and dam have the recessive gene responsible even though they don't have obvious malocclusions.

I haven't read the papers but as much of it is connected to the size and shape of various breeds' mouths, I'd be inclined to think it was much more polygenic than a simple recessive.

Further to what Brainless already said, malocclusion is common in rabbits but in recent years it is not only the Dwarfs affected, it is now seen in others without the flat faces of the miniature breeds. (And it is a serious life or death deal in rabbits - their teeth never stop growing so if they are maloccluded it can kill them - there is also late onset malocclusion which often occurs after they have been bred from).

If this is also the case in dogs then there's no point in pinning it down to a gene, the whole jaw shape and skull formation has to be considered as well, as there may be more than one cause.

What Brainless said.
Pugs for example: a mouth with good conformation does not exist in this breed. In fact, a fully functioning head (mouth, eyes, airways).....does not exist. Perhaps 100 years ago it did. not now.

Teacup tiny mini yorkies/chis etc: good mouth conformation not possible.

Saw a client this morning. Had 3 yorkies. Wants to breed from the smallest  -3 retained canines at 10mo. I pointed at the largest yorkie, a sturdy one with good bone that probably could kill a rat and the best mouth, eyes and hindlimb conformation of the 3 and the steadiest temperament. Suggested breeding that one instead and explained why. Not interested. Apparently a dog half the weight of an adult cat is where it's at. As evidenced by the Chi I also saw this morning - 1.5kg with tear ducts and teeth to match.

But there is also baby and bathwater where Polygenic traits and recessive traits are concerned. 

You would have nothing to breed from at all if you avoided all relatives of an affected animal of what in this case is a minor fault (not a life or death or seriously debilitating fault).

But there is also baby and bathwater where Polygenic traits and recessive traits are concerned. 

You would have nothing to breed from at all if you avoided all relatives of an affected animal of what in this case is a minor fault (not a life or death or seriously debilitating fault).

Looking at the post from Irishvet even where there is a choice the breeder was insisting on not breeding from the only Yorkie 'fit for purpose' and chose to breed from 'teacup' designer type dogs.  Surely this is unethical and irresponsible breeding.  We've had bulldogs whose breeders interpretted the breed standard at the time of square blocky heads to be the biggest blockiest head they could find only to produce a species who could no longer give birth naturally. 

So if in these instances there is no 'teacup' species fit to breed from is that such a problem?  I've seen pathetic little Chis with jaws so big they can't be contained within the face, these dogs live with a permanently open jaw, lolling tongue and breathing difficulties that must make every day living and breathing a nightmare.  To me (and others) this is not a 'minor fault'.

Common sense should prevail and no matter what the current demand is for 'teacup' dogs, breeders should not comply but should continue breeding in the interest of the breed.

I only breed from and keep correct mouths which are cleaned, scaled and maintained carefully.
I run two lines, one if which has BIG strong white teeth reminiscent of a large breed scissor mouth. The other line more toy in type, smaller teeth but still as per standard.

Fully functioning too, raw bones and meat no problem.

Yes, I do have retained teeth removed by my vet at 6 months.  It would only result in an extremely overcrowded mouth if I didn't. .......

I do the best I can to keep such tiny mouths healthy. 

And I'm sure if your dogs understood what you are doing for their welfare they'd give a big thumbs up!  Retained puppy teeth is another cause of jaw problems that any breed, not just the tiny ones, can well do without. 

> Looking at the post from Irishvet even where there is a choice the breeder was insisting on not breeding from the only Yorkie 'fit for purpose' and chose to breed from 'teacup' designer type dogs. 

That was not likely a decent breeder but a puppy producer breeding for the current fad.

The most well known to most breeder of Yorkies Ozman Sameja who won BIS at Crufts, when interviewed about his breeding said he always used decent size bitches for breeding, at the top end of the breed standard for weight.

Sadly a Google search on his kennel name show several obvious BYB adverts citing they come from his line, must make the man so sad and angry to see his kennel name being used this way when in reality there is probably a male of his breeding from a pet home way back in the pedigree of the pups advertised as toy and teacups.

> I've seen pathetic little Chis with jaws so big they can't be contained within the face, these dogs live with a permanently open jaw, lolling tongue and breathing difficulties that must make every day living and breathing a nightmare.  To me (and others) this is not a 'minor fault'.
>
>

Your talking gross malformations here, not minor dentition faults.

Have you seen these dogs at shows, at show breeders homes, I would say no.

The dogs from such breeders with a MINOR mouth fault, slightly undershot/teeth out of line, slightly oversize etc have minor faults, as the breeders are breeding to a standard, which in these breeds cases (I will leave the deliberately Brachy and achodroplastic breeds out of this for now) is quite able to accommodate a healthy toy dog.

I'm not into toy dogs (would keep cats or Rabbits instead), but the ones I see at shows are healthy, perhaps some are little Divas, but that's more to do with the owners.  I don't judge so the only thing I can't say is what the mouths are like, but from looking at their jaw-lines (no lolling tongues or misshapen jaws) then any mouth faults are going to be minor.

Those breeding Toy Yorkies, teacups this or that have probably never even read a breed standard, let alone tried to interpret and conform to one in their breeding efforts.

> The most well known to most breeder of Yorkies Ozman Sameja who won BIS at Crufts, when interviewed about his breeding said he always used decent size bitches for breeding, at the top end of the breed standard for weight.
>
>

Which is an ethical way of breeding.  I do exactly the same with Chihuahuas.  Yet I have had enquiries from people who only wanted a pup from a Tea Cup dam!  :-(  Nobody could have been more pleased than me when the KC changed the standard so that the preferred weight is 4 - 6lbs.  To me, that is still plenty small enough. 

Yes breeders like this then have bitches they can show and win with, and who can breed on.

Henry had 1 dental in his lifetime, and Ellie at 8.5 years has not yet needed one. Mind you I do have to get them in a gentle headlock to brush their teeth, unlike my American cocker who just stands there and lets me get on with it!