The Histological Paradox: Methodology and Efficacy of Dental Sectioning

Christopher Aris

doi:10.14324/111.444.2041-9015.1133

Abstract

Within the last two decades, the fields of dental anthropology and bioarchaeology have seen a drastic increase in the number of studies investigating the internal structures of human enamel in archaeological populations. Due to its relatively low cost and preparation time, combined with a high degree of accuracy, destructive histological analysis has become a common methodology in enamel research. However, despite its accuracy and presence within academic literature, institutions often reject applications to perform histological analysis as standard procedure. Most frequently this is justified because destructive analysis negatively impacts future research. As a result, many studies are forced to utilise published data or attempt to access the small number of dental histological slides already in existence. This paper details the processes and procedures followed during histological sampling, with the aim to provide an easily accessible reference for curators allowing them to make more informed decisions regarding requests to conduct histology on samples within their care. Moreover, this paper highlights the preservative methods available to researchers which, when employed, both limit the negative impact to future research and expand the type of material which institutions can provide access to. Access to these new materials provides curators with alternative responses to applications rather than rejecting proposals entirely. Methods include high quality resin casting, which allows for future metric and micro-wear analysis, and digital stitching methods for producing dental cross section databases which institutions can offer access to instead of further destructive sampling.<br>

Highlights

Dental anthropology is a rapidly expanding field with research spanning the breadth of primate and hominin evolution, variation, and taxonomy (e.g. Beynon et al 1991; Schwartz 2000; Skinner et al 2008), hominoid dietary variation, (e.g. Martin et al 2003; Vogel et al 2008; Lucas et al 2013; Pampush et al 2013; Le Luyer et al 2014; Le Luyer and Bayle 2017), and the impact of human health on dentition (e.g. Lukacs 1991, 1992, & 1999; Birch and Dean 2014; Primeau et al 2015)
This paper aims to: (1) Provide an comprehendible outline for the procesbsutowfhich Brexit has brought crisis from which we can only histological analysis of human dentition; (2) present an exhaustive list of the data outcome is still salvageable
While destructive, when histological analysis is implemented alongside diWgeitawlould like to thank th to our paper for their contr techniques it provides affordable access to a wealth of valuable data and produuncfoelsding debate over Brex tionship to archaeology and both physical and digital resources that can be curated by institutions for fuetsusarysereflect in diverse way intersection of the scholarly, t research

Summary

Introduction

Dental anthropology is a rapidly expanding field with research spanning the breadth of primate and hominin evolution, variation, and taxonomy (e.g. Beynon et al 1991; Schwartz 2000; Skinner et al 2008), hominoid dietary variation, (e.g. Martin et al 2003; Vogel et al 2008; Lucas et al 2013; Pampush et al 2013; Le Luyer et al 2014; Le Luyer and Bayle 2017), and the impact of human health on dentition (e.g. Lukacs 1991, 1992, & 1999; Birch and Dean 2014; Primeau et al 2015). Reid and Dean 2006; Olejniczak et al 2008; Mahoney 2010), regional secretionAannddrew Gardner and R growth rates of enamel More recent research has begun to identify intraspecific variation in enamel thickness measures Dean 2006; Smith et al 2006a; Mahoney 2008; Le Luyer and Bayle 2017). These discoveries have raised questions regarding the extent of intraspecific variation in human enamel. Such questions can only be answered by conducting more expansive histological analyses within archaeological and bioarchaeological research projects

Objectives

Discussion

Conclusion