Inter-Observer Processing and Measurement Error Are Low for 2D Dental Measurements on Shared MicroCT Scans

Overview

Journal Am J Biol Anthropol

Date 2025 Jan 31

PMID 39888217

Authors

Kaita N Gurian

Debra Guatelli-Steinberg

W Scott McGraw

Jess Rychel

Mackie C OHara

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Sharing micro-computed tomographic (μCT) scans of teeth increases data accessibility and reduces the need for repeated scans of any given specimen. However, the use of the same TIFF stacks or DICOMs by multiple individuals has the potential to introduce new sources of error. Here, we explore whether use of the same μCT scans by different persons produces comparable results.

Materials And Methods: Worn (N = 11) and unworn (N = 4) Cercocebus atys upper molars (UM1 N = 8, UM2 N = 7) were μCT scanned using a Bruker Skyscan 1172 High Resolution Ex Vivo Scanner at a resolution of 22 μm. Two individuals (K.N.G. and M.C.O.) created a 2D mesial slice for each TIFF stack (tooth). Worn teeth were reconstructed by K.N.G. and M.C.O. Three researchers (M.C.O., K.N.G., and J.R.) measured tooth shape, linear enamel thickness, average enamel thickness, and relative enamel thickness (AET and RET). Inter-observer percent error was calculated for each measurement. Univariate ANOVAs were calculated to evaluate variance due to slice maker, reconstructor, tooth, and measurer when percent error averaged > 5%.

Results: For unworn teeth, error was generally low and largely due to the person doing the measurement. For worn teeth, wear reconstructor was a statistically significant source of variation for AET and RET.

Discussion: We found that (1) inter-observer error was generally low, (2) linear measurements are prone to error, (3) worn teeth did not present an additional source of error as compared to unworn teeth, and (4) different people can use the same μCT scans to reliably reconstruct, slice, and measure teeth.

References

Skinner M, Alemseged Z, Gaunitz C, Hublin J . Enamel thickness trends in Plio-Pleistocene hominin mandibular molars. J Hum Evol. 2015; 85:35-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.03.012. View

Bailey S, Benazzi S, Hublin J . Allometry, merism, and tooth shape of the upper deciduous M2 and permanent M1. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2014; 154(1):104-14. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22477. View

OHara M, Guatelli-Steinberg D . Reconstructing tooth crown heights and enamel caps: A comparative test of three existing methods with recommendations for their use. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2021; 305(1):123-143. DOI: 10.1002/ar.24637. View

OHara M, Le Cabec A, Xing S, Skinner M, Guatelli-Steinberg D . Safe Casting and Reliable Cusp Reconstruction Assisted by Micro-Computed Tomographic Scans of Fossil Teeth. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2018; 302(9):1516-1535. DOI: 10.1002/ar.24047. View

Martin L . Significance of enamel thickness in hominoid evolution. Nature. 1985; 314(6008):260-3. DOI: 10.1038/314260a0. View

Macho G, Thackeray J . Computed tomography and intercuspal angulation of maxillary molars of Plio-Pleistocene hominids from Sterkfontein, Swartkrans and Kromdraai (South Africa): an exploratory study. Z Morphol Anthropol. 1993; 79(3):261-9. View

Benazzi S, Panetta D, Fornai C, Toussaint M, Gruppioni G, Hublin J . Technical Note: Guidelines for the digital computation of 2D and 3D enamel thickness in hominoid teeth. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2013; 153(2):305-13. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22421. View

Skinner M, Gunz P, Wood B, Hublin J . Enamel-dentine junction (EDJ) morphology distinguishes the lower molars of Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus. J Hum Evol. 2008; 55(6):979-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.08.013. View

Molnar S, Gantt D . Functional implications of primate enamel thickness. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1977; 46(3):447-54. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330460310. View

10.

Skinner M, Wood B, Boesch C, Olejniczak A, Rosas A, Smith T . Dental trait expression at the enamel-dentine junction of lower molars in extant and fossil hominoids. J Hum Evol. 2007; 54(2):173-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.09.012. View

11.

Molnar S . Human tooth wear, tooth function and cultural variability. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1971; 34(2):175-89. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330340204. View

12.

Benazzi S, Fantini M, De Crescenzio F, Persiani F, Gruppioni G . Improving the spatial orientation of human teeth using a virtual 3D approach. J Hum Evol. 2009; 56(3):286-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.07.006. View

13.

Smith T, Olejniczak A, Reid D, Ferrell R, Hublin J . Modern human molar enamel thickness and enamel-dentine junction shape. Arch Oral Biol. 2006; 51(11):974-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2006.04.012. View

14.

Martin L, Olejniczak A, Maas M . Enamel thickness and microstructure in pitheciin primates, with comments on dietary adaptations of the middle Miocene hominoid Kenyapithecus. J Hum Evol. 2003; 45(5):351-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2003.08.005. View

15.

Popovic Z, Thomas J . Assessing observer variability: a user's guide. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2017; 7(3):317-324. PMC: 5440257. DOI: 10.21037/cdt.2017.03.12. View