Dental Microwear Texture Analysis

Microwear patterns form continuously during mastication and are modified by new wear with each meal. The exposed surface represents the accumulation of wear from recent food consumption (approximately the last 1-2 months of life). In contrast, stable isotope ratios in bone and enamel integrate dietary information over years to decades. Combining both methods provides information at multiple timescales.

No, microwear reflects food categories, not specific foods. Different foods create similar wear patterns if they have similar material properties (hardness, toughness). For example, nuts, seeds, and bone all create pit-like wear features. Identifying specific foods requires integration with zooarchaeological (what fauna was available) and archaeobotanical (what plants were cultivated or gathered) evidence.

Diagenetic alteration and surface weathering can create features that mimic dietary wear. Careful examination under SEM can usually distinguish biological wear (sharp edges, distinct patterns) from post-mortem artifacts (random scratches, rounded edges). Badly altered teeth should be excluded from analysis. Only specimens with well-preserved occlusal surfaces should be analyzed.

Yes. Older individuals with heavily worn teeth show different patterns than young individuals with newly erupted teeth eating identical diets. Some wear features accumulate over the lifetime regardless of diet. Age-related variation must be accounted for in comparisons. Ideally, individuals of similar age should be compared when studying dietary differences.

Quantitative parameters (pit density, scratch density, surface roughness) are objective and reproducible, allowing statistical comparisons and hypothesis testing. Subjective descriptions are prone to observer bias and are not statistically testable. Modern DMTA relies on quantitative texture metrics that can be directly compared across populations and time periods.