OBJECTIVE: Oral status is an important indicator of past lifestyles. Determining the presence and extent of oral pathologies helps reconstruct average oral health, paramasticatory activities and diet of ancient and historical populations.
METHODS: In this study, the dental remains from the early medieval cemetery of Früebergstrasse in Baar (Canton of Zug, Switzerland) and the high medieval Dalheim cemetery (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany) were analyzed. Caries, periodontal condition, periapical lesions, antemortem tooth loss, and enamel hypoplasia were assessed in 654 teeth (993 observable loci) from 68 individuals (Baar: n = 36; Dalheim: n = 32).
RESULTS: The oral status of both populations was affected by age with higher values of tooth wear in advanced age individuals. High tooth wear values in both populations point towards the consumption of abrasive foods. Pronounced anterior tooth wear in Baar may also be due to non-masticatory tooth usage. Finally, possible nutritional deficiencies were hypothesized for the Baar population. A higher caries prevalence was observed in the Baar group, probably due to differences in carbohydrate intake. The oral conditions observed in the two studied populations exhibited several analogies, suggesting comparable lifestyles despite their separation in space and time. The only differences observed are related to the use of teeth as \"tools\" and are thus determined by behavioral choices rather than diverse socioeconomic factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Using multiple dental parameters to examine the oral health of premodern individuals can provide useful insights into the interactions between humans and their environment, from dietary patterns to paramasticatory activities.

The marks left by the bite of a subject (bitemark) represent an unequivocal character, being useful in identifying the possible perpetrator of a crime. To date, the analysis of bitemarks is mainly based on the direct vision of photographic finds and on the visual comparison with the teeth of the hypothetically responsible person. However, the bitemark also retains three-dimensional characteristics detectable with a 3D scanner. In this pilot study, an innovative method of bitemark analysis, utilizing a three-dimensional scanner and some software, will be introduced, enabling a quantitative comparison of bitemarks and their corresponding human dentitions. For this purpose, 10 complete plaster models (human dentitions) of 10 adult subjects were used to make 20 experimental bitemarks on dentistry wax. All materials were individually scanned with the iTero® 3D scanner and reworked with MeshMixer software. A visual analysis of the characteristics and a computerized analysis with the CloudCompare software were also performed. Study showed a different trend of the distribution curves of the points which were obtained comparing the human dentition and coincident and non-coincident bitemarks. Current results support that the intraoral 3D scanner allows the fast record and the preservation of the three-dimensional characteristics of the bitemarks, and it allows computerized analyses to be carried out.

Dental uniqueness can be proven if no perfect match in pair-wise morphological comparisons of human dentitions is detected. Establishing these comparisons in a worldwide random population is practically unfeasible due to the need for a large and representative sample size. Sample stratification is an option to reduce sample size. The present study investigated the uniqueness of the human dentition in randomly selected subjects (Group 1), orthodontically treated patients (Group 2), twins (Group 3), and orthodontically treated twins (Group 4) in comparison with a threshold control sample of identical dentitions (Group 5). The samples consisted of digital cast files (DCF) obtained through extraoral 3D scanning. A total of 2.013 pair-wise morphological comparisons were performed (Group 1 n=110, Group 2 n=1.711, Group 3 n=172, Group 4 n=10, Group 5 n=10) with Geomagic Studio® (3D Systems®, Rock Hill, SC, USA) software package. Comparisons within groups were performed quantifying the morphological differences between DCF in Euclidean distances. Comparisons between groups were established applying One-way ANOVA. To ensure fair comparisons a post-hoc Power Analysis was performed. ROC analysis was applied to distinguish unique from non-unique dentures. Identical DCF were not detected within the experimental groups (from 1 to 4). The most similar DCF had Euclidian distance of 5.19mm in Group 1, 2.06mm in Group 2, 2.03mm in Group 3, and 1.88mm in Group 4. Groups 2 and 3 were statistically different from Group 5 (p<0.05). Statistically significant difference between Group 4 and 5 revealed to be possible including more pair-wise comparisons in both groups. The ROC analysis revealed sensitivity rate of 80% and specificity between 66.7% and 81.6%. Evidence to sustain the uniqueness of the human dentition in random and stratified populations was observed in the present study. Further studies testing the influence of the quantity of tooth material on morphological difference between dentitions and its impact on uniqueness remain necessary.

The uniqueness of human dentition is routinely approached as identification evidence in forensic odontology. Specifically in bitemark and human identification cases, positive identifications are obtained under the hypothesis that two individuals do not have the same dental features. The present study compiles methodological information from articles on the uniqueness of human dentition to support investigations into the mentioned hypothesis. In April 2014, three electronic library databases (SciELO®, MEDLINE®/PubMed®, and LILACS®) were systematically searched. In parallel, reference lists of relevant studies were also screened. From the obtained articles (n = 1235), 13 full-text articles were considered eligible. They were examined according to the studied parameters: the sample size, the number of examined teeth, the registration technique for data collection, the methods for data analysis, and the study outcomes. Six combinations of studied data were detected: (1) dental shape, size, angulation, and position (n = 1); (2) dental shape, size, and angulation (n = 4); (3) dental shape and size (n = 5); (4) dental angulation and position (n = 2); (5) dental shape and angulation (n = 1); and (6) dental shape (n = 1). The sample size ranged between 10 and 1099 human dentitions. Ten articles examined the six anterior teeth, while three articles examined more teeth. Four articles exclusively addressed three-dimensional (3D) data registration, while six articles used two-dimensional (2D) imaging. In three articles, both imaging registrations were combined. Most articles (n = 9) explored the data using landmark placement. The other articles (n = 4) comprised digital comparison of superimposed dental contours. Although there were large methodological variations within the investigated articles, the uniqueness of human dentition remains unproved.