Department of Palaeoanthropology and Messel Research, Senckenberg Research Institute, 60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010 Oct;143(2):306-12. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.21311.
High variability in the dentition of Homo can create uncertainties in the correct identification of isolated teeth. For instance, standard tooth identification criteria cannot determine with absolute certainty if an isolated tooth is a second or third maxillary molar. In this contribution, using occlusal fingerprint analysis, we reassess the identification of Krapina D58 (Homo neanderthalensis), which is catalogued as a third maxillary molar. We have hypothesized that the presence/absence of the distal occlusal wear facets can be used to differentiate second from third maxillary molars. The results obtained confirm our hypothesis, showing a significant difference between second and third maxillary molars. In particular we note the complete absence of Facets 7 and 10 in all third molars included in this analysis. The presence of these facets in Krapina D58 eliminates the possibility that it is a third maxillary molar. Consequently it should be reclassified as a second molar. Although this method is limited by the degree of dental wear (i.e., unworn teeth cannot be analyzed) and to individual molars in full occlusion, it can be used for tooth identification when other common criteria are not sufficient to discriminate between second and third maxillary molars.
人类牙齿形态存在高度变异性,这可能会导致孤立牙齿的正确鉴定存在不确定性。例如,标准的牙齿鉴定标准不能绝对确定一个孤立的牙齿是第二或第三上颌磨牙。在本研究中,我们使用咬合指纹分析重新评估了编号为 Krapina D58(尼安德特人)的牙齿鉴定,该牙齿被归类为第三上颌磨牙。我们假设,远中咬合磨损面的存在/缺失可用于区分第二和第三上颌磨牙。研究结果证实了我们的假设,表明第二和第三上颌磨牙之间存在显著差异。特别是,我们注意到所有纳入本分析的第三磨牙中都完全没有第七和第十远中咬合面。Krapina D58 存在这些面,排除了它是第三上颌磨牙的可能性。因此,它应该重新归类为第二磨牙。虽然这种方法受到牙齿磨损程度(即未磨损的牙齿无法进行分析)和单个完全咬合的磨牙的限制,但当其他常见标准不足以区分第二和第三上颌磨牙时,它可以用于牙齿鉴定。