ArticleAmerican journal of biological anthropology2025
Variation in Modern Human Deciduous Molar Enamel Formation Time.
Article 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.
- Validating Dental Histology for Perinatal Age Estimation Using Human Deciduous Teeth.American journal of biological anthropology · 2026Article
- Variation in Modern Human Deciduous Molar Enamel Formation Time.American journal of biological anthropology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesHistologically derived deciduous molar enamel formation times hold great potential for accessing information about the prenatal and postnatal ontogeny of juvenile fossil hominins. Yet our understanding of these formation times in modern humans is limited which inhibits comparative analyses. Here we utilize histology to investigate geographic and temporal variation in prenatal, postnatal, and total enamel cusp formation times among modern humans. We examine some of the processes whereby differences in formation time can arise by considering the underlying rate at which enamel forms and the average amount of enamel that is produced. SAMPLES AND
methodsLongitudinal thin sections of n = 356 deciduous first and second deciduous molars were selected from eight populations. Present-day samples were from the United Kingdom, North America, and Aotearoa New Zealand. Archaeological samples represented the Medieval, Roman, and Iron Age periods. Formation times were calculated from prism lengths and daily cross striations.
resultsTotal cusp formation times for present-day populations were similar except for Pacific Island peoples whose molars formed over a relatively short period. Enamel cusps of the archaeological periods were complete on average 2.5 to 3 months ahead of those from present-day populations. Longer formation times were due to slower growth rates and an extended period of enamel formation after birth. Enamel thickness varied only slightly between all populations. DISCUSSION: Our results reveal few differences in formation times between present-day populations. Enamel formation was complete relatively early in the archaeological samples, which we explore through shifts in the pace of somatic growth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.