ArticleJournal of anatomy2026
Labiolingual thickness and cross-sectional area in callitrichid incisors.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several species of primate rely on tree exudates as a component of their diet, with taxa ranging from opportunistic exudativores to intensive exudativores. To access these exudates, many taxa make use of modified anterior teeth to gouge into tree bark to stimulate the flow of saps or gums. Recent efforts have identified several "dental signatures" of exudativory among primates, including differences in the robustness and bending resistance of the strepsirrhine toothcomb. The relative size and the labiolingual thickness of the lower incisors have also been cited as a difference between gouging and non-gouging callitrichids, with the former predicted to have relatively larger (in cross-sectional area) and labiolingually thicker lower incisors. However, along with methodological issues, these predictions have generally only been tested in a small sample of callitrichid taxa. Here, these predictions are tested in a sample of seven extant callitrichid species (N = 185 specimens), representing five genera. The results suggest that gouging callitrichids are not characterized by relatively larger incisors, contrary to previous results. However, the gougers are characterized by labiolingually thicker lower incisors compared to the non-gougers, which hypothetically helps resist bending stress during gouging. Having relatively taller incisors, as well as more highly decussated enamel, larger tooth roots, and differences in enamel distribution, along with the labiolingually thicker lower incisors may explain why the gouging taxa are not characterized by relatively larger incisors. This pattern of incisor morphology serves as another signal for primate gouging and may provide insight into gouging behavior in the fossil record and other extant taxa such as the exudativorous lorisoids.
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.