ReviewAmerican journal of biological anthropology2025
A (Bite) Force to Be Reckoned With.
Review in American journal of biological anthropology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bite force-gape curves and passive tension costs in Macaca mulatta.The Journal of experimental biology · 2026Article
- A (Bite) Force to Be Reckoned With.American journal of biological anthropology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesBite force has received significant attention in biological anthropology, but maximum bite force estimates for a single primate species often span hundreds of newtons. In this synthesis, we discuss the definitions of maximum bite force, review and highlight the variability in methods used to assess bite force in primates, and compare bite force ranges in macaques to bracket maximum force estimates between physiological and mechanical maxima. MATERIALS AND
methodsMethods of estimating bite force in primates were gathered from the literature along with published estimates of maximum bite force for macaques (Macaca sp.).
resultsMaximum bite force can be defined physiologically or mechanically, and methods of estimating bite force can be grouped as in vivo, muscle-based, and craniodental within these two definitions. Physiological estimates occur under natural conditions modulated by sensorimotor feedback, whereas mechanical maximum bite forces ignore muscular and neural limitations. Published maximum bite forces for macaques at the molars vary from 127 N to 898 N, a 771 N range. Using a bracketing approach suggested here, we narrow the estimated bite force range at the incisors to 487-503 N and 503-898 N for the molars. DISCUSSION: This synthesis emphasizes the need for comparisons between in vivo, muscle-based, and craniodental bite force methods in living primates. We propose bracketing bite force estimates between physiological and mechanical maxima in order to provide more reliable bite force estimates and improve understanding of how bite force relates to primate functional morphology and feeding ecology.
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.