In the dog show world, a “tooth fairy” isn’t a judge who leaves a dime on your grooming table. It is an unofficial nickname given to a judge who counts a dog’s teeth during an individual examination. Full dentition isn’t an issue in some breeds, but informed judges know that in some other breeds, it matters enough to be written into the standard. A missing tooth or two, for example, is permissible in the Chihuahua’s AKC standard, but missing two or more teeth is a severe fault in the Neapolitan Mastiff; in the Shiba Inu standard, it takes five or more missing teeth to be a very serious fault, while in the Rottweiler standard, any missing tooth is a serious fault. It pays to know one’s standard!
Some readers may wonder why missing teeth would be an issue at all, and to answer this with an example, we turn our attention to the Black Russian Terrier. One missing tooth is a serious fault in this working breed, and two or more missing teeth is a disqualification per the AKC standard. The United Kennel Club standard is even stricter: under “Disqualifications” it simply lists “Missing teeth.”
Why?
Remember that the Black Russian Terrier was developed as a military and guard dog expected to bite, hold, and, if necessary, engage in physical confrontation. It follows, then, that full, strong dentition is not cosmetic, but part of the same functional system as skeletal mass, musculature, craniofacial proportions, and a stable working temperament.
From a biomechanical perspective, complete dentition ensures proper occlusal alignment and load distribution across the dental arcade during gripping, holding, and resisting counterforce, while the presence and normal development of all teeth—particularly premolars and molars—maintain alveolar bone density and contribute to the structural strength of the mandible and maxilla. In English, this means that from a structural point of view, a full set of teeth helps keep the bite lined up correctly and spreads the physical force of gripping and holding across the whole mouth. When all the teeth are present and develop normally—especially the premolars and molars—they help preserve the density of the jawbone and add to the overall strength of both upper and lower jaws.
Veterinary and working-dog literature note that congenitally absent or developmentally compromised teeth can reflect underlying deficiencies in jaw formation or mineralization, and the loss of even a single tooth can alter the dog’s bite mechanics, increase localized stress on his remaining teeth, and reduce efficiency in sustained gripping tasks. Treating “just one missing tooth” as unimportant flies in the face of what we know about how structure and function are linked in a serious working mouth. Writers of the breed standard knew that to dismiss a missing tooth as a minor detail risks overlooking a heritable weakness in dentition, tooth eruption, or cranial development. Maintaining genetic stability is paramount in a breed created from a complex mix of about 17 different breeds, and if judges and breeders ignore one missing tooth, the next generation might miss two or three. We call this a slippery slope.
While some breeds can accept missing teeth because oral function is no longer central to their work, the Black Russian Terrier’s mouth remains part of its core working equipment, and protecting it is an expression of fidelity to the breed’s original purpose.
We end with a hat tip to Dr. Peter Emily whom we met in the late 1970s. He was one of those rare figures who quietly changed two worlds at once: purebred dogs and veterinary dentistry. A human dentist, Doberman breeder, and longtime AKC Working Group judge, he kept seeing serious bite faults and missing teeth in the ring and in his own litters—enough that he began X‑raying mouths and adapting his human dental tools to treat canine problems at a time when “animal dentistry” mostly meant extractions. That curiosity and ingenuity helped push the entire field forward: he became an Honorary Diplomate of the American Veterinary Dental College and the Academy of Veterinary Dentistry, helped shape the early board‑certification process, and taught one of the first formal veterinary dentistry courses at Colorado State University. His influence on how fanciers, including ourselves, thought about dog mouths was huge. As a Working Group judge and a lecturer on canine movement and structure, he hammered home that bites, dentition, and jaw construction are hard, functional anatomy, not cosmetic trivia, and he backed it up with clinical work on everything from performance dogs to zoo carnivores. Through the Peter Emily International Veterinary Dental Foundation, he then turned that expertise into a global teaching platform, funding equipment, leading missions, and training veterinarians and technicians in techniques that are now routine in managing canine mouths—including the working mouths that matter so much in protection and herding breeds.
He is missed.
Photo of a barking Black Russian Terrier by Wasan Prunglampoo/Dreamstime