Tooth wear: a response to 'Scratching the surface: a critique of Lucas et al. (2013)'s conclusion that phytoliths do not abrade enamel' J. Hum. Evol. 74 (2014) 130-133

• Published in: Journal of human evolution Vol. 102; pp. 75 - 77
• Main Authors: Casteren, Adam van, Atkins, Anthony G, Lucas, Peter W, Omar, Ridwaan, Fadhalah, Khaled Al, Almusallam, Abdulwahab S, Henry, Amanda G, Michael, Shaji, Thai, Lidia Arockia, Watzke, Jorg, Strait, David S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01-01-2017
• Subjects: Biomechanics; Bones; Diet; Ecosystem biology; Monkeys & apes; Paleontology; Primates; Teeth
• ISSN: 0047-2484
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.08.004

We contend that it is difficult to understand the relationships between diet, feeding, and the evolution of tooth form without also understanding the mechanics governing tooth wear. To address the limitations of traditional approaches to understanding wear in a dental context, Lucas et al. (2013) employed theoretical developments that combine contact mechanics and fracture mechanics, while conducting pioneering single-contact experiments and property measurements at the scale of real wear events. Since then, Rabenold and Pearson (2014) have argued that traditional hardness tests and repeated-contact wear tests are indeed sufficient for assessing tooth wear processes.We reply to this here, advocating that anthropologists should go forward and strive to advance to the frontiers of modern mechanical theory and experiment, grappling with the mechanisms that drive thewear process. This will provide a sound basis for understanding and predicting tooth wear rates. All rights reserved, Elsevier