ArticleScientific reports2019
Surface Replication, Fidelity and Data Loss in Traditional Dental Microwear and Dental Microwear Texture Analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-microscope comparability of dental microwear texture data obtained from different optical profilometers: Part I Reproducibility of diet inference using different instruments.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2026Article
- Preparation of Photocurable Organic-Inorganic Hybrid Composites for Continuous Manufacturing of 3D-Patterned Abrasive.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Experimental approaches to assess the effect of composition of abrasives in the cause of dental microwear.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dental microwear studies often analyze casts rather than original surfaces, although the information loss associated with reproduction is rarely considered. To investigate the sensitivity of high magnification (150x) microwear analysis to common surface replication materials and methods, we compared areal surface texture parameters (ISO 25178-2) and traditional microwear variables (pits and scratches) generated from teeth and casts of rat molars exposed to experimental diets involving hard and soft foods in which abrasive materials had been added. Although the data from the original and replicated surfaces were correlated, many significant differences were found between the resulting data of the casts and original teeth. Both areal surface texture parameters and traditional microwear variables showed diminished ability to discriminate between the eight diet treatments when casts were analyzed. When areal surface texture parameters and traditional microwear variables were combined into a single discriminant function analysis, the cast data and original data produced the most similar results. Microwear researchers tend to favor either texture analysis or traditional microwear methods, better results may be generated by combining them. Although surface textures were not accurately reproduced by the casts, they retained sufficient information to discriminate between microwear of the experimental diets to a degree similar to the original teeth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.