Comparison of Dental Measurement Systems for
Taxonomic Assignment of First Molars
Stefano Benazzi,1,2
* Michael Coquerelle,1
Luca Fiorenza,2
Fred Bookstein,1,3
Stanislav Katina,4,5
and Ottmar Kullmer2
1
Department of Anthropology, University of Vienna, Vienna 1090, Austria
2
Department of Palaeoanthropology and Messel Research, Senckenberg Research Institute,
Frankfurt am Main D-60325, Germany
3
Department of Statistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
4
Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, Comenius University, Bratislava 842 48, Slovakia
5
Department of Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
KEY WORDS teeth; morphometrics; cervical outline; crown outline; Neanderthal
ABSTRACT Morphometrics of the molar crown is
based traditionally on diameter measurements but is
nowadays more often based on 2D image analysis of crown
outlines. An alternative approach involves measurements
at the level of the cervical line. We compare the information
content of the two options in a three-dimensional (3D)
digital sample of lower and upper first molars (M1 and
M1
) of modern human and Neanderthal teeth. The cervical
outline for each tooth was created by digitizing the cervical
line and then sectioning the tooth with a best fit
plane. The crown outline was projected onto this same
plane. The curves were analyzed by direct extraction of
diameters, diagonals, and area and also by principal component
analysis either of the residuals obtained by
regressing out these measurements from the radii (shape
information) or directly by the radii (size and shape information).
For M1
, the crown and cervical outline radii allow
us to discriminate between Neanderthals and modern
humans with 90% and 95% accuracy, respectively. Fairly
good discrimination between the groups (80–82.5%) was
also obtained using cervical measurements. With respect
to M1, general overlap of the two groups was obtained by
both crown and cervical measurements; however, the two
taxa were differentiable by crown outline residuals (90–
97%). Accordingly, while crown diameters or crown radii
should be used for taxonomic analysis of unworn or
slightly worn M1
s, the crown outline, after regressing out
size information, could be promising for taxonomic assignment
of lower M1s. Am J Phys Anthropol 144:342–354,
2011. VVC 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Traditional approaches for studying dental remains
are characterized by morphological descriptions and caliper
measurements of tooth crowns. Recent contributions
in anthropology (e.g. Iscan and Kedici, 2003; Harris and
Lease, 2005; Matsumura and Hudson, 2005) and paleoanthropology
(e.g., Coppa et al., 2005; Bailey and
Hublin, 2006; Kaifu et al., 2007) confirm that carefully
prescribed caliper measurements (e.g., the mesiodistal
diameter (MD) and the buccolingual diameter (BL))
remain useful tools for taxonomic studies.
Beginning in the 1960s, in keeping with the general
turn to medical image analysis in many branches of the
organismal biosciences, there were experiments with
extraction of similar information from image analysis of
occlusal surfaces (Hanihara, 1961; Erdbrink, 1965; Biggerstaff,
1970; Hanihara et al., 1970). These data include
simple measurements such as area (Le Blanc and Black,
1974; Williams, 1979), quantifications of crown outline
shape, configurations of landmarks from these images,
and cusp base areas (Wood and Abbott, 1983; Wood
et al., 1983; Morris, 1986; Sekikawa et al., 1988; Wood,
1991; Peretz et al., 1997, 1998a,b; Bailey, 2004; Bailey
and Lynch, 2005; Harris and Dinh, 2006; Kondo and
Townsend, 2006; Martino´n-Torres et al., 2006; Peretz
et al., 2006; Go´mez-Robles et al., 2007).
It is obvious that all measurements of such occlusal
surface images are affected by wear. This effect is not a
problem when wear per se is the biological process of interest.
However, in other study designs, wear is a confounding
factor, altering not only crown height and cusp
morphology but also crown walls and hence crown diameter
data (Hillson et al., 2005). Accordingly, as Bailey
(2004) and Bailey et al. (2005) concede, measurements
taken at the cusp apices, such as cusp angles and occlusal
polygon area, should be taken only from unworn or
slightly worn teeth. Regarding the form of the outline in
occlusal view, one approach would be to ‘‘correct’’ the corresponding
measurements of mesial and distal crown
margins by reference to the buccolingual extent of the
wear facet along with the curvature of the crown margins
in occlusal view (Wood and Abbott, 1983; Bailey,
2004; Bailey and Lynch, 2005). Many researchers recommend
simply excluding heavily worn teeth from their
Grant sponsor: EU Marie Curie Training Network; Grant numbers:
MRTN-CT-2005-019564 EVAN, VEGA 1/0077/09; Grant sponsor:
NSF Hominid Grant 2007; Grant number: NSF 01-120.
*Correspondence to: Stefano Benazzi, Department of Anthropology,
University of Vienna, Althanstraße 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
E-mail: stefano.benazzi@univie.ac.at
Received 24 May 2010; accepted 26 August 2010
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.21409
Published online 10 November 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
VVC 2010 WILEY-LISS, INC.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 144:342–354 (2011)
image analysis studies (e.g., Wood and Abbott, 1983;
Kondo and Townsend, 2006; Martino´n-Torres et al.,
2006; Pilbrow, 2006; Go´mez-Robles et al., 2007). However,
such a strategy is disadvantageous for studies of
paleoanthropological tooth assemblages, where sample
size is very low already and dental remains are often
significantly worn.
To incorporate worn teeth from archaeological or paleontological
sites, Hillson et al. (2005) sought measurements
less sensitive to enamel wear. They verified that
cervical diameters and diagonals were correlated with
the more usual crown measurements (Hillson et al.,
2005) and hence might be a useful supplement for dental
analysis in modern human samples. However, the reliability
of these measurements for taxonomic assignment
has not thus far been verified.
The present contribution evaluates the utility of information
from diameters, diagonals, and outlines of two
distinct closed curves (crown outline and cervical outline)
for taxonomic assignment of Neanderthal and modern
human isolated first molars.
MATERIALS
Our sample consists of 79 lower and upper M1
s, 47
from modern humans (M1 5 22, M1
5 25) and 32 that
are casts of human fossil specimens (M1 5 17, M1
5 15)
(Table 1). The modern sample includes Northern Italian
medieval first molars and also specimens collected from
the Department of Anthropology, University of Vienna,
Austria and from the Department of Paleoanthropology
and Messel Research in the Senckenberg Research Institute,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The fossil material
is represented mainly by Neanderthal specimens and
Upper Palaeolithic modern humans (UPMH). For statistical
analysis, the few UPMH specimens are combined
with the contemporary Homo sapiens, but they are plotted
with distinct labels. To avoid enamel reflection and
transparency, as well as to prevent damage to the fossil
originals, casts carefully reproduced by standard methods,
as described elsewhere (Fiorenza et al., 2009), were
used for three-dimensional (3D) surface scanning. In
addition, some virtual tooth models were downloaded
from the NESPOS (Neanderthal Studies Professional
Online Service) digital internet archive (www.nespos.org)
(Table 1).
Following the work of Bailey (2004) and the suggestions
provided by Hillson et al. (2005) about measurements
in worn molars, only first molars characterized by
a slight or moderate degree of wear were considered
(wear stage lower than 5; Smith, 1984).
All molars are regarded as left molars—actual right
molars were mirror-imaged prior to any further compu-
tations.
METHODS
All the teeth from the Italian medieval sample and
some casts from the fossil specimens were scanned with
a Roland Picza PIX-30 piezoelectric digitizer provided
with a Roland Active Piezo Sensor (R.A.P.S.) probe with
a resolution of 0.1 mm (Table 1). The 3D model of each
tooth was generated with Pixform 2001 software. Microcomputer
tomography models (micro-CT) of molars from
the Vienna anthropological collection were acquired
using Viscom X8060. All micro-CT scans were recorded
in TIFF file format (pixel size 70 lm, slice thickness also
70 lm). The 3D digital models were built via the software
package Amira 5.2 (
C Mercury Computer Systems,
Chelmsford, MA). Models were created semi-automatically
by threshold-based segmentation, contour extraction,
and surface reconstruction. Other casts were
scanned using a smartScan 3D system (Breuckmann
GmbH), with a resolution of about 60 lm (Breuckmann,
1993; Beraldin et al., 2000; Godin et al., 2002). The final
TABLE 1. List of fossil teetha
and 3D scan system used
Group Lower M1 Scan systems Upper M1 Scan systems
H. Neandertalensis BDJ4C9 (l)b
microCT (NESPOSc
) Combe Grenal (r) Picza PIX-30
Devils Tower (r) Picza PIX-30 Krapina 100 (l) smartSCAN 3D
Krapina 80 (r) Picza PIX-30 Krapina 134 (r) Picza PIX-30
Krapina 81 (l) Picza PIX-30 Krapina 136 (l) Picza PIX-30
Krapina 84 (r) smartSCAN 3D Krapina 164 (l) Picza PIX-30
La Chaise 13 (l) microCT (NESPOS) Krapina 166 (r) Picza PIX-31
La Chaise 14 (r) microCT (NESPOS) Krapina 171 (r) Picza PIX-30
La Chaise S49 (r) microCT (NESPOS) Kulna 1 (r) smartSCAN 3D
La Quina 5 (r) smartSCAN 3D La Quina 18 (r) smartSCAN 3D
Okladnikov (l) smartSCAN 3D Pontnewydd 4 (r) smartSCAN 3D
Rochelet (l) microCT (NESPOS) Pontnewydd 12 (l) smartSCAN 3D
Regourdou 1 (r) smartSCAN 3D Spy 2 (l) Picza PIX-30
Petit Puy 3 (r) Picza PIX-30 Poggio Cave (l) Picza PIX-30
Vindija 226 (l) Picza PIX-30
Vindija 231 (l) smartSCAN 3D
UPMHd
Les Rois R50-4 (r) Picza PIX-30 Fonte´chevade 2 (l) Picza PIX-30
Sunghir 3 (r) smartSCAN 3D Sunghir 3 (l) smartSCAN 3D
Modern humans Medieval Italian (n 5 15)e
Picza PIX-30 Medieval Italian (n 5 15)e
Picza PIX-30
Southern Asia (n 5 4)f
smartSCAN 3D Europe (n 5 4)g
microCT
Australian (n 5 3)g
microCT Australian (n 5 6)g
microCT
a
r, right; l, left.
b
Name of the site: Abri Bourgeois-Delaunay ‘‘La Chaise-de-Vouthon.’’
c
NESPOS Database/www.nespos.org.
d
UPMH, upper Paleolithic modern human.
e
Department of History and Methods for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, University of Bologna (Ravenna, Italy).
f
Department of Paleoanthropology and Messel Research, Senckenberg Research Institute (Frankfurt am Main, Germany).
g
Department of Anthropology, University of Vienna (Vienna, Austria).
343COMPARISON OF DENTAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
alignment of the views was achieved using optoCAT software
2007 (Breuckmann GmbH).
The 3D digital tooth models were preoriented in Rhino
4.0 Beta CAD environment (Robert McNeel & Associates,
Seattle, WA), according to the description given by
Benazzi et al. (2009), to define buccal, lingual, mesial,
and distal views of the tooth. The models were positioned
with the occlusal view parallel to the xy-plane of
the Cartesian coordinate system. On the buccal and lingual
side of the molars, two points were identified at
the intersection of the cervical line with the line joining
the most cervical point of the bifurcation of the root and
the most apical point of the groove dividing the two
main lobes of each surface. The tooth was rotated until
Fig. 1. Upper left first molar. (a) Triangle vertices were selected up to a maximum distance of 0.2 mm above and below the cervical
polyline. (b) Best-fit plane passing through the triangle vertices. (c) Bounding box of the cervical outline with displayed diameters
and diagonal measurements. (d) 16 equiangular radii out of the centroid of the area. The first radii is buccally directed and
parallel to the y-axis of the Cartesian coordinate system.
344 S. BENAZZI ET AL.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
the projection on the xy-plane of the segment joining the
two points was parallel to the y-axis of the Cartesian
coordinate system (Benazzi et al., 2009).
In the IMEdit module of PolyWorks1
10 (InnovMetric
Software), the cervical lines of the preoriented teeth
were manually outlined using the polyline tool and all
surface model triangle vertices were selected that lay
within 0.2 mm of the cervical polyline (Fig. 1a). This
method compensates for model and processor errors
(Kullmer et al., 2002; Ulhaas et al., 2004) such as those
that originate in cervix defects in the original crowns or
otherwise. It also corrects for the minor mistakes in
drawing the polyline where small portions of the cervical
line are not visible in the digital model. Next, we computed
the best-fit plane through the band of selected vertex
points (cervical plane: Fig. 1b). This plane sections
the tooth in a curve that we take as the cervical outline.
Maintaining the same preorientation, each tooth was
subsequently rotated until the cervical plane was parallel
to the xy-plane. The crown was projected onto this xyplane
and its outline (horizon) taken, a planar representation
of what is in reality a nonplanar curve. Both
crown outline and cervical outline were centered on the
centroid of their area. Bounding boxes were displayed
(Fig. 1c) tangential to the most extreme points of the
crown and cervical sides (MD and BL diameters). The
diagonals of the bounding boxes, mesiobuccal-distolingual
(MB-DL) and mesiolingual-distobuccal (ML-DB),
were taken as the diagonals of the teeth.
The diameters and diagonals measured on these outlines
are not exactly the same as those conventionally
measured by calipers. As pointed out by Hillson et al.
(2005), small rotations of the crown between the caliper
jaws can lead to variations in the measured diameter of
1 mm or more, and personal judgment is often involved
in any attempt to keep the calipers in correct position
(Hillson et al., 2005). Moreover, there are several alternative
criteria for crown diameter measurements (e.g.,
Moorrees and Reed, 1954; Goose, 1963; Kieser, 1990),
with different results depending on the method used.
Our objective and replicable approach (Fig. 1) avoids
these problems by representing the occlusal surface as a
curve. Where teeth showed interproximal wear, the
crown outline of the original mesial or distal borders
were corrected by reference to the buccolingual extent of
the wear facet, the outline curvature following the crown
margins in occlusal view (e.g., Wood and Engleman,
1988; Bailey, 2004).
All outlines were represented by 16 equiangularly
spaced radial vectors out of the centroid of area. The
first radius is buccally directed and parallel to the y-axis
(Fig. 1d). Outline size was computed as the root sum of
squared radii (thus a radial equivalent of ‘‘centroid
size’’). The radii measure shape and size of the outlines
and thus covary with diameters, diagonals, and area.
Therefore, we regressed the part of radial size explained
by diameters, diagonals, and area out of the actual
crown and cervical outline data, to evaluate the possible
usefulness of the residual shape variation for classification
of Neanderthal and modern human teeth. That is to
say, for both the crown outline and the cervical outline,
we carried out linear regressions of the 16 radii, one by
one, on both MD and BL, then on both MB-DL and MLDB,
and finally on the area. The ‘‘residual shape’’ is just
the shape formed by the 16 residuals of these radii after
these regressions; evidently, it does not correspond to a
geometric figure (as about half of the radii will be negative
case by case). As there were three families of regressions,
diameters, diagonals, and area, there were three
residual shapes for the crown outline and three for the
cervical outline. For each of the two outlines, principal
component analysis (PCA) was carried out both for the
original radii and for the three sets of regression residuals:
a total of eight PCAs for each tooth class.
Finally, the discriminant function analyses we use are
quadratic discriminant analyses (QDAs) rather than the
more commonly encountered linear discriminant analyses
(LDAs). This is because for some of our measurements,
particularly the outlines area in Table 4, the
within-group variances are different between our two
taxonomic groups. When the standard deviations are different
and are acknowledged to be different, the corresponding
log likelihood ratio is actually a quadratic function
(a function of x2
as well as x), hence we use a ‘‘quadratic’’
discrimination. A QDA is not the same thing as a
LDA that uses x and x2
as the predictors—this approach
would not take into account the difference in standard
deviations between the groups, which is the point of
QDA. A QDA, for instance, can discriminate between
two groups that have the same average if their variances
are different enough—that is the situation in Tables 2
and 4—whereas a LDA cannot do so. The QDAs of the
dental dimensions (diameters, diagonals, and area) and
of a subset of principal components (PCs) were used to
classify the specimens. We restricted ourselves to five
principal components to accommodate a majority of the
shape variability (usually about 80%) while avoiding
overfitting. We use a cross-validation approach (a leaveone-out
method) to assign the specimen to the group
with the higher posterior probability. For data processing
and analyses, we used software routines written in R
software (R Development Core Team, 2008).
RESULTS
In general, the PC plots of the residuals from the
regression of the diameters, diagonals, and area for the
crown and cervical outline produce equivalent results
regardless of the particular regression. Therefore, for
each tooth class we display only four of the PCAs: two
computed from crown and cervical outline residuals (M1:
residuals obtained after regressing out the diameters;
M1
: residuals obtained after regressing out the area),
and another two from the original radii. Here PC1 is
always highly correlated with radial size (r 5 0.99).
Lower M1
Figure 2 and Table 2 show that Neanderthals, UPMH
and modern humans overlap to a large extent regarding
diameters, diagonals, and areas measured either at the
crown outline or at the cervical outline. The group
averages of these measurements do not differ significantly
between Neanderthals and modern humans
TABLE 2. Lower M1 outline area (mm2
): mean and standard
deviation (SD)
Groups N
Crown outline
area
Cervical
outline area
Mean SD Mean SD
Modern humansa
24 104.31 12.01 76.75 9.51
Neandertals 15 108.66 8.54 83.00 6.47
a
UPMH is included.
345COMPARISON OF DENTAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
(P-value [ 0.05 by permutation test, 1,000 permutations).
The cross-validation QDA of these dimensions
(diameters, diagonals, and areas) leads to a high misclassification
of Neanderthals and modern humans (Table 3).
The results of the PCAs of the crown and cervical outlines
are summarized in Figures 3 and 4. Regarding the
crown residuals obtained after regressing out the crown
diameters from the crown radii (Fig. 3a), the first three
PCs account for 60.3% of the total variance. Neanderthals
and modern humans tend to separate along PC1,
while there is no such trend for PC2 or PC3. In the
direction of PC1, Neanderthals show a buccodistal outline
expansion and a convex lingual outline shape (high
scores), while modern human and UPMH specimens are
associated with a buccodistal reduction of the outline
and a straighter lingual side (low scores). The results of
the cross-validation QDA show that 94.9% of the Neanderthals
and modern humans are correctly classified
based on crown outline residuals (Table 3).
The PCA and cross-validation QDA of the crown radii
do not provide better results than the crown outline
residuals (Fig. 3b, Table 3). The first three PCs account
for about 93.7% of the total variance. Neanderthals and
modern humans overlap along PC1 and PC2, but they
tend to separate along PC3. PC3 reflects shape changes
related to buccodistal outline expansion and convex lingual
outline shape (low scores: Neanderthal shape), and
buccodistal reduction with straighter lingual side (high
scores: modern human shape). The UPMH specimens
plot with the modern humans (Fig. 3).
Regarding the cervical outline residuals (cervical
diameters regressed out from the cervical radii, Fig. 4a),
the separation between Neanderthals and modern
humans—including UPMH specimens—is less clear than
for the crown residuals. The two groups overlap along
each of the first three PCs. The results of the cross-validation
QDA shows that about 75% of Neanderthals and
modern humans are correctly classified (Table 3). The
results do not improve using the cervical radii (Fig. 4b,
Table 3). While the first three PCs account for a large
amount of the total variance (92.5%), there remains a
large overlap in each direction. By cross-validation QDA,
Fig. 2. Scatterplot of M1 crown and cervical measurements. (a) BL and MD crown diameters. (b) MB-DL and ML-DB crown
diagonals. (c) BL and MD cervical diameters. (d) MB-DL and ML-DB cervical diagonals. Modern humans, black circles; Neanderthals,
triangles; UPMH, white circles.
346 S. BENAZZI ET AL.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
61.5% of Neanderthals and modern humans are correctly
classified (Table 3).
Upper M1
Unlike the case for M1, for M1
, the diameters, diagonals
and areas measured either at the crown outline or
the cervical outline overlap to a much lesser extent
between Neanderthals and modern humans (Fig. 5, Table
4). The group means of these dimensions are significantly
different between Neanderthals and modern
humans except ML-DB at the cervical outline. For crown
and cervix, the few UPMH specimens plot between the
middle-upper modern human range. The results of the
cross-validation QDA show that the diameters, diagonals
and areas allow correct classification of between 80%
and 82.5% of the Neanderthals and modern humans
(Table 5).
Figures 6 and 7 summarize the results of the PCA of
the crown and cervical outlines. Figure 6a shows the
PCA of the residuals obtained after regressing out areas
from the crown radii. The first three PCs account for
76.6% of the total variance. The UPMH specimens plot
within the modern human sample. Neanderthals and
modern humans tend to separate on PC1 but not PC2 or
PC3. Along PC1, Neanderthal specimens (higher scores)
are associated with a wide distolingual outline as a
result of a large hypocone, a slight expansion of the
mesiobuccal side and a reduction of the distobuccal outline,
while modern humans (lower scores) show a subsquare
shape, with a narrow distolingual outline and a
slight expansion of the distobuccal side. The cross-validaFig.
3. M1 crown outline. (a) PCA of the residuals after regressing out crown diameters from the crown radii. (b) PCA of the
crown radii. At each extremity of the axes is drawn the deformed mean crown outline in the direction of the PC, extrapolated by a
factor of 3SD of PCs. Modern humans, black circles; Neanderthals, triangles; UPMH, white circles.
347COMPARISON OF DENTAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
tion QDA of the crown outline residuals leads to a correct
classification of 85% of the specimens (Table 5). Figure
6b shows the PCA of the crown radii. The first three
PCs account for 94% of the total variance. Neanderthals
and modern humans are separated on PC1 which is, of
course, correlated with size. Neanderthals show a wide
distolingual outline (higher scores) and consequently an
almost rhomboidal shape, while modern humans (lower
scores) are characterized by a subcircular outline. To a
lesser extent, the two groups seem to have different
means on PC2, but not PC3 (Fig. 6b). Lower PC2 scores
are associated with distolingual outline expansion (Neanderthal
shape), while higher PC2 scores account for
subcircular shape due to distobuccal and mesiolingual
outline expansion and distolingual outline reduction
(modern human shape). The UPMH specimens plot
within the modern human sample. When the four PCs
obtained for the crown radii are submitted to cross-validation
QDA, 95% of the specimens are correctly classified
(Table 5).
With respect to the cervical residuals (the cervical
area regressed out from the cervical radii, Fig. 7a), the
first three PCs account for about 82% of the total variance.
Neanderthals and modern humans tend to have
different means on PC1 but not PC2 and PC3. As for the
crown, the cervical outline shows a distolingual expansion
in Neanderthals (higher PC1 scores), while modern
humans are characterized by mesiodistal outline compression
with concomitant subrectangular shape and distolingual
outline reduction (lower PC1 scores). The
UPMH specimens provide variable results; Fontechevade-2
fits in the modern human sample while SunghirFig.
4. M1 cervical outline. (a) PCA of the residuals after regressing out cervical diameters from the cervical radii. (b) PCA of
the cervical radii. At each extremity of the axes is drawn the deformed mean crown outline in the direction of the PC, extrapolated
by a factor of 3SD of PCs. Modern humans, black circles; Neanderthals, triangles; UPMH, white circles.
348 S. BENAZZI ET AL.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
3 plots with the Neanderthals. The results of the crossvalidation
QDA show that 75% of the specimens are
correctly classified.
The results improve using the cervical radii (Fig. 7b,
Table 5). The first three PCs account for a large amount
of the total variance (93%). The two groups are well
separated in the direction of PC1. The shape change
associated with PC1 also includes the distolingual
expansion (higher scores) or reduction (lower scores) of
the outline. Shape information related to the same portion
of the outline is contained in PC2 but not in PC3.
Neanderthals are characterized by a rhomboidal cervical
outline due to distolingual expansion (lower PC2
scores), while modern humans show subsquare outline
(higher PC2 scores). For PC1, the UPMH specimens plot
in between Neanderthal and modern human, but Fontechevade-2
scores closer to modern humans with regard
to PC2, while Sunghir-3 scores closer to Neanderthals on
PC3 (Fig. 7b). When the first four PCs are submitted to
cross-validation QDA, 90% of the Neanderthals and modern
humans are correctly classified (Table 5).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
It is important to know whether the more time-consuming
measurements (such as outlines or areas) are
worth the trouble for these taxonomic purposes, particularly
in regard to circumventing the effects of wear. In
unworn teeth, 2D image analysis of cusp area or the occlusal
polygon might provide for adequate taxonomic
assignment of isolated first molars. The challenge is to
include worn teeth for which the cusp tips are obscured
and the occlusal grooves may no longer be visible. In
this condition, both the traditional approach based on
caliper measurements at the crown (e.g., Iscan and
Kedici, 2003; Coppa et al., 2005; Harris and Lease, 2005;
Matsumura and Hudson, 2005; Bailey and Hublin, 2006;
Kaifu et al., 2007) and the 2D image analysis of the occlusal
surface (Wood and Abbott, 1983; Wood et al.,
1983; Sekikawa et al., 1988; Wood, 1991; Peretz et al.,
1997, 1998a,b; Bailey, 2004; Bailey and Lynch, 2005;
Harris and Dinh, 2006; Kondo and Townsend, 2006; Peretz
et al., 2006; Go´mez-Robles et al., 2007) are limited by
reduced sample sizes and the need to reconstruct missing
outlines (Wood and Abbott, 1983; Wood et al., 1983).
Moreover, since the maximum MD crown diameter of the
molars is generally one-third to one-half of the way from
the occlusal surface to the cervix, even modest interproximal
wear can affect MD diameters (Hillson et al., 2005);
but the maximum BL diameter, measured at one-third to
one-half from the cervix, is not affected even in Smith
wear stage 4 (Smith, 1984).
We find that, at least for the lower molar, a more thorough
metric examination could lead to better discrimination
between Neanderthals and modern humans, and
that cervical measurements (diameters, diagonals, and
area) could provide classification accuracy similar to
those from crown measurements in upper M1s.
For M1
, diameters, diagonals and areas either at the
crown or at the cervix are sufficient to classify our two
taxa at up to 82.5% accuracy (Fig. 5, Table 5). Even after
diameters, diagonals and areas are regressed out from
the crown and cervical radii (Figs. 6 and 7), morphological
peculiarities such as the well-known hypocone
enlargement seen in Neanderthal maxillary first molars
(e.g., Bailey, 2002, 2004; Go´mez-Robles et al., 2007) are
still present. Despite that, the percentage of Neanderthals
and modern humans correctly classified does not
improve (Table 5). The original crown and cervical radius
values, in which both size and shape information
are still present, leads to a better classification compared
with diameters, diagonals and area—up to 95% accuracy.
We suggest that crown diameters or crown radii should
be used for taxonomic analysis of unworn or slightly
worn M1
, and that for worn, isolated M1
, measurements
TABLE 3. Results of QDA for the lower M1a
Dental measurements
Misclassified
Total
misclassified
Correctly
classified (%)
Modern
humansb
Neandertals
Crown
Diameters 4 13 17 56.4
Diagonals 5 14 19 51.3
Outline area 7 15 22 43.6
PCsc
(diameter regressed) 1 1 2 94.9
PCs (diagonal regressed) 1 0 1 97.4
PCs (area regressed) 2 2 4 89.7
PCs (centered radii) 1 2 3 87.2
Cervical
Diameters 10 7 17 56.4
Diagonals 8 10 18 53.8
Outline area 10 7 17 56.4
PCs (diameter regressed) 5 5 10 74.5
PCs (diagonal regressed) 4 7 11 71.8
PCs (area regressed) 3 9 12 69.2
PCs (centered radii) 6 9 15 61.5
a
Results after cross-validation.
b
UPMH is included.
c
PCs, principal component scores (the first five PCs were used for QDA).
TABLE 4. Upper M1 outline area (mm2
): mean and standard
deviation (SD)
Groups N
Crown outline
area
Cervical
outline area
Mean SD Mean SD
Modern humansa
27 108.90 8.21 82.70 6.75
Neandertals 13 124.97 19.41 98.08 13.31
a
UPMH is included.
349COMPARISON OF DENTAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Fig. 5. Scatterplot of M1
crown and cervical measurements. (a) BL and MD crown diameters. (b) MB-DL and ML-DB crown
diagonals. (c) BL and MD cervical diameters. (d) MB-DL and ML-DB cervical diagonals. Modern humans, black circles; Neanderthals,
triangles; UPMH, white circles.
TABLE 5. Results of QDA for the upper M1a
Dental
measurements
Misclassified
Total
misclassified
Correctly
classified (%)
Modern
humansb
Neandertals
Crown
Diameters 2 5 7 82.5
Diagonals 2 5 7 82.5
Outline area 1 7 8 80.0
PCsc
(diameter regressed) 3 5 8 80.0
PCs (diagonal regressed) 3 5 8 80.0
PCs (area regressed) 0 5 5 87.5
PCs (centered radii) 0 2 2 95.0
Cervical
Diameters 4 3 7 82.5
Diagonals 3 5 8 80.0
Outline area 2 6 8 80.0
PCs (diameter regressed) 7 12 19 52.5
PCs (diagonal regressed) 4 6 10 75.0
PCs (area regressed) 4 6 10 75.0
PCs (centered radii) 2 2 4 90.0
a
Results after cross-validation.
b
UPMH is included.
c
PCs, principal component scores (the first five PCs were used for QDA).
at the cervix (diameters, diagonals, and area but also
cervical outline radii) are a reliable alternative.
In contrast to the situation with M1
, for M1 the crown
and cervical diameters, diagonals and areas barely differentiate
Neanderthals from modern humans at all
(Fig. 2, Table 3). Once crown measurements are
regressed out from the crown radii, the levels of classifications
are considerably higher, ranging up to 97.4%
(Table 3). In other words, while the grosser crown measurements
are useless for distinguishing between Neanderthal
and modern human M1s, some morphological
crown outline features account for interesting taxonomic
differences between the two taxa: a reduction of the buccodistal
outline (related to the hypoconulid) and the
straighter lingual side in modern humans when compared
to Neanderthal M1s. Moreover, the classifications
based on crown residuals and crown radii are more accurate
than those based on cervical residuals and cervical
radii.
Yet the most heavily worn M1, those with only a few
millimeters of the crown height preserved, can be classified
only with difficulty. This is a general consideration
that limits the results of any kind of surface analysis of
the M1 for the strictly taxonomic purpose exemplified
Fig. 6. M1
crown outline. (a) PCA of the residuals after regressing out crown area from the crown radii. (b) PCA of the crown
radii. At each extremity of the axes is drawn the deformed mean crown outline in the direction of the PC, extrapolated by a factor
of 3SD of PCs. Modern humans, black circles; Neanderthals, triangles; UPMH, white circles.
351COMPARISON OF DENTAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
here. In fact, if unworn or less worn M1s are considered,
nonmetric traits alone could underlie a reliable taxonomy
(e.g., Bailey, 2002). Indeed, we have also shown that
the crown outline, after regressing out size information,
could be promising for taxonomic assignment of lower
M1. Nevertheless, when M1s are so heavily worn that
large dentine basins are exposed, less information is preserved
and traditional measurements at the cervical line
fail to distinguish satisfactorily between Neanderthals
and modern humans. Perhaps the information contained
in the cervical residuals could supply a classification
with accuracy in the 70–75% range.
If the cervical outline approach is to be as useful as
we think it ought to be, we need a database of these
hitherto unusual measurements. Since a 3D model of the
tooth is required in order to mark the cervical line, the
method is obviously more time-consuming than caliperbased
methods. It should be used only where it promises
real advantages. Moreover, the approach used here for
orienting the teeth (based on the best-fit plane at the
cervical line and the BL axis, see above) may not be the
best solution for other tooth classes. Although the cervical
line of the molars is almost flat, mesial and distal
cervical lines in canines and incisors differ markedly
Fig. 7. M1
cervical outline. (a) PCA of the residuals after regressing out cervical area from the cervical radii. (b) PCA of the cervical
radii. At each extremity of the axes is drawn the deformed mean crown outline in the direction of the PC, extrapolated by a
factor of 3SD of PCs. Modern humans, black circles; Neanderthals, triangles; UPMH, white circles.
352 S. BENAZZI ET AL.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
between buccal and lingual sides. A best-fit plane section
would provide an erroneous representation of the cervical
line. Yet, an objective definition of the BL axis is
required for tooth orientation. As mentioned earlier, MD
and the BL diameters depend on the criteria for crown
diameter measurements used (e.g., Moorrees and Reed,
1954; Goose, 1963; Kieser, 1990): the latter is usually
measured perpendicular to the former and considered as
the BL axis of the tooth (e.g., Hillson et al., 2005). This
fact explains why we cannot rely on this subjectively
defined BL axis for orienting teeth. Nevertheless, we
also emphasize that the objective method shown here for
identifying the BL axis (see above) would not be suitable
in a maxillary molar with extremely reduced or not present
hypocone. This last case, which affects the expression
of the groove between protocone and hypocone, is
not a serious problem when we only focus on M1
, but
prevents an extension of the methodology to the second
or third molars. Methods should be developed for each
practical context.
Our results suggest that the association between
shape and size is different for the upper and lower M1s
and, importantly, in both teeth there is a species signature.
Species information is carried by both size and
size-independent shape for M1
, whereas species information
is only revealed by size-independent shape for M1.
Accordingly, in both cases the size-independent shape of
the crown outline holds important taxonomic information.
How does the shape of the upper and lower M1
covary with respect to the species signal? On the basis of
our sample, we could argue that the shape difference
between Neanderthals and modern humans we observed
at the distobuccal side of the lower M1, that is, the hypoconulid,
is correlated to that which we observed at the
distolingual side of the upper M1, that is, the hypocone.
Nevertheless, to test this assumption, for instance via
partial least squares analysis, and to examine the association
between shape and size in both teeth, each paired
upper and lower M1 must belong to the same individual.
Such a study design is not possible using the Neanderthal
fossil specimens currently available. Finally, despite
our intention to create a representative fossil sample, we
are aware that our sample cannot account for the whole
variability of Neanderthal and UPMH upper and lower
M1. Therefore, we emphasize that the results mentioned
earlier are relevant for our fossil sample, but further
work on the subject with a larger sample size is desira-
ble.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Peter Ungar (Paleoanthropology Laboratory,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA) for
the use of the piezoelectric digitizer in his laboratory,
Erik Trinkaus (Paleoanthropology Laboratory, Washington
University, St. Louis, MO) for providing casts of Neanderthal
and Upper Palaeolithic modern human teeth,
and Gerhard Weber (Department of Anthropology, University
of Vienna, Austria) and the Vienna micro-ct Lab
for access to microCT data of first molars. We are grateful
to the following curators and institutions for access
to comparative and fossil specimens: Marta Dockalova´
(Moravske´ Zemske´ Muzeum, Anthropos Institute, Brno,
Czech Republic), Chris Stringer and Rob Kruszynski
(Natural History Museum of London, England; National
Museum of Wales, Cardiff), and Yoel Rak (Department of
Anatomy and Anthropology, University of Tel Aviv,
Israel). We wish also to thank Bence Viola for the casts
of Sunghir. We are grateful to the ‘‘Neanderthal Studies
Professional Online Service’’ (NESPOS Database/
www.nespos.org), and convey our special thanks to Priscilla
Bayle for her precious advice in downloading 3D
models from the NESPOS internet platform. Many
thanks to Dick Byer for proofreading this manuscript.
We thank A. G. Drake for his help with the English language
on the final version of the manuscript.
LITERATURE CITED
Bailey SE. 2002. A closer look at Neanderthal postcanine dental
morphology: the mandibular dentition. Anat Rec 269:148–156.
Bailey SE. 2004. A morphometric analysis of maxillary molar
crowns of Middle-Late Pleistocene hominins. J Hum Evol
47:183–198.
Bailey SE, Hublin JJ. 2006. Dental remains from the Grotte du
Renne at Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne). J Hum Evol 50:485–508.
Bailey SE, Lynch JM. 2005. Diagnostic differences in mandibular
P4 shape between Neanderthals and anatomically modern
humans. Am J Phys Anthropol 126:268–277.
Bailey SE, Pilbrow VC, Wood BA. 2005. Interobserver error
involved in independent attempts to measure cusp base areas
of PanM1s. J Anat 205:323–331.
Benazzi S, Fantini M, De Crescenzio F, Persiani F, Gruppioni G.
2009. Improving the spatial orientation of human teeth using
a virtual 3D approach. J Hum Evol 56:286–293.
Beraldin JA, Blais F, Cournoyer L, Godin G, Rioux M. 2000.
Active 3D sensing. Modelli e metodi per lo studio e la conservazione
dell’architettura storica, Scuola Normale Superiore
Pisa. Quaderni 10:22–46.
Biggerstaff RH. 1970. A quantitative and qualitative study of
the post-canine dentition of twins. Ann Arbor: University
Microfilms.
Breuckmann B. 1993. Bildverarbeitung und optische Meßtechnik
in der industriellen Praxis. Mu¨nchen: Franzis.
Coppa A, Gru¨n R, Stringer C, Eggins S, Vargiu R. 2005. Newly
recognized Pleistocene human teeth from Tabun Cave, Israel.
J Hum Evol 49:301–315.
Erdbrink DP. 1965. A quantification of the Dryopithecus and
other lower molar patterns in man and some of the apes. Z
Morphol Anthropol 57:70–108.
Fiorenza L, Benazzi S, Kullmer O. 2009. Morphology, wear and
3D digital surface models: materials and techniques to create
high-resolution replicas of teeth. J Anthropol Sci 87:211–218.
Godin G, Beraldin JA, Taylor J. 2002. Active optical 3D imaging
for heritage applications. IEEE CG&A 22:24–36.
Go´mez-Robles A, Martino´n-Torres M, Bermu´dez de Castro JM.
2007. A geometric morphometric analysis of hominin upper
first molar shape. J Hum Evol 53:272–285.
Goose DH. 1963. Dental measurement: an assessment of its
value in anthropological studies. In: Brothwell DR, editor.
Dental anthropology. London: Pergamon Press. p 125–148.
Hanihara K. 1961. Criteria for classification of crown characters
of the human deciduous dentition. J Anthropol Soc Nippon
69:27–45.
Hanihara K, Tamada M, Tanaka T. 1970. Quantitative analysis
of the hypocone in the human upper molars. J Anthropol Soc
Nippon 78:200–207.
Harris EF, Dinh DP. 2006. Intercusp relationships of the permanent
maxillary first and second molars in American whites.
Am J Phys Anthropol 130:514–528.
Harris EF, Lease LR. 2005. Mesiodistal tooth crown dimensions
of the primary dentition: a worldwide survey. Am J Phys
Anthropol 128:593–607.
Hillson S, Fitzgerald C, Flinn H. 2005. Alternative dental measurements:
proposals and relationships with other measurements.
Am J Phys Anthropol 126:413–426.
Iscan MY, Kedici PS. 2003. Sexual variation in bucco-lingual
dimensions in Turkish dentition. Forensic Sci Int 137:160–
164.
353COMPARISON OF DENTAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Kaifu Y, Arif J, Yokoyama K, Baba H, Suparka E, Gunawan H.
2007. A new Homo erectus molar from Sangiran. J Hum Evol
52:222–226.
Kieser JA. 1990. Human adult odontometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kondo S, Townsend GC. 2006. Associations between Carabelli
trait and cusp areas in human permanent maxillary first
molars. Am J Phys Anthropol 129:196–203.
Kullmer O, Huck M, Engel K, Schrenk F, Bromage TG. 2002.
Hominid Tooth Pattern Database (HOTPAD) based on optical
3D topometry. In: Mafart B, Delingette H, editors. Threedimensional
imaging in paleoanthropology and prehistoric
archaeology, Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress, University of
Lie`ge, Belgium, 2–8 September 2001, Colloque, Symposium
1.7 BAR International Series 1049. p 71–82.
Le Blanc SA, Black B. 1974. A long term trend in tooth size in
the eastern Mediterranean. Am J Phys Anthropol 41:417–422.
Martino´n-Torres M, Bastir M, Bermu´dez de Castro JM, Go´mez
A, Sarmiento S, Muela A, Arsuaga JL. 2006. Hominin lower
second premolar morphology: evolutionary inferences through
geometric morphometric analysis. J Hum Evol 50:523–533.
Matsumura H, Hudson MJ. 2005. Dental perspectives on the
population history of Southeast Asia. Am J Phys Anthropol
127:182–209.
Moorrees CFA, Reed RB. 1954. Correlations among crown diameters
of human teeth. Arch Oral Biol 9:685–697.
Morris DH. 1986. Maxillary molar occlusal polygons in five
human samples. Am J Phys Anthropol 70:333–338.
Peretz B, Nevis N, Smith P. 1997. Morphometric variables of
developing primary maxillary first molar crowns in humans.
Arch Oral Biol 42:423–427.
Peretz B, Nevis N, Smith P. 1998a. Morphometric analysis of
developing crowns of maxillary primary second molars and
permanent first molars in humans. Arch Oral Biol 43:525–
533.
Peretz B, Shapira J, Farbstein H, Arieli E, Smith P. 1998b.
Modified cuspal relationships of mandibular molar teeth in
children with Down’s syndrome. J Anat 193:529–533.
Peretz SI, Bernal V, Gonzalez PN. 2006. Differences between
sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics,
with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation.
J Anat 208:769–784.
Pilbrow V. 2006. Population systematics of chimpanzees using
molar morphometrics. J Hum Evol 51:646–662.
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: a language and environment
for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation
for Statistical Computing.http://www.r-project.org.
Sekikawa M, Kanazawa E, Ozaki T, Brown T. 1988. Principal
component analysis of intercusp distances on the lower first
molars of three human populations. Arch Oral Biol 33:535–541.
Smith BH. 1984. Patterns of molar wear in hunter-gatherers
and agriculturalists. Am J Phys Anthropol 63:39–56.
Ulhaas L, Kullmer O, Schrenk F, Henke W. 2004. A new 3-d
approach to determine functional morphology of cercopithecoid
molars. Ann Anat 186:487–494.
Williams LR. 1979. A photogrammetrical analysis of the pongid
molar morphology. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.
Wood BA. 1991. Koobi Fora Research Project, Vol. 4: Hominid
cranial remains. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wood BA, Abbott SA. 1983. Analysis of the dental morphology
of Plio-Pleistocene hominids. I. Mandibular molars: crown
area measurements and morphological traits. J Anat 136:
197–219.
Wood BA, Abbott SA, Graham SH. 1983. Analysis of the dental
morphology of Plio-Pleistocene hominids. II. Mandibular
molars-study of cusp areas, fissure pattern and cross sectional
shape of the crown. J Anat 137:287–314.
Wood BA, Engleman CA. 1988. Analysis of the dental morphology
of Plio-Pleistocene hominids. V. Maxillary postcanine
tooth morphology. J Anat 161:1–35.
354 S. BENAZZI ET AL.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology