Reconstructing tooth crown heights and enamel caps: A comparative test of three existing methods with recommendations for their use

Abstract

Studies of enamel growth and thickness, whether in paleoanthropology, bioarchaeology, or primatology, require measurements of crown height (CH), cuspal enamel thickness (CET), average (AET), and/or regional enamel thickness (RegAET) on complete, unworn crowns. Yet because fully unworn crowns are uncommon, three methods to bolster sample sizes by reconstructing slightly worn teeth have been developed: Profile, Polynomial, and Pen Tool. Although these methods have been tested for accuracy, no study has yet directly compared the three methods to assess their performance across CH, CET, AET, and RegAET measurements. Moreover, it is currently unclear how accurate the methods are when reconstructing crowns with varying degrees of wear. The present study addresses this gap in our understanding of how these methods perform on four key dental measurements, evaluates the degree of wear for which accurate crown reconstructions can be completed, and offers recommendations for applying these methods. Here, the methods are compared on Paranthropus robustus mandibular molars, a sample chosen because it exhibits variable morphology, presenting a challenge for reconstruction methods. For minimally worn teeth, Profile, Polynomial, and Pen Tool methods can be employed (in that order) for all measurements except CET, which cannot be reliably measured on reconstructions. For teeth with wear that obliterates the nadir of the occlusal basin or dentin horns, CH and AET can be measured using Profile and Polynomial reconstructions; however, no other measurements or methods were reliable. Recommendations provided here will make it possible to increase sample sizes and replicability, enhancing studies of enamel thickness and growth.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.