• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • University of Alaska Fairbanks
    • UAF Graduate School
    • Anthropology
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • University of Alaska Fairbanks
    • UAF Graduate School
    • Anthropology
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of Scholarworks@UACommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypeThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsType

    My Account

    Login

    First Time Submitters, Register Here

    Register

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Molar size and shape in the estimation of biological affinity: a comparison of relative cusp locations using geometric morphometrics and interlandmark distances

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Kenyhercz_uaf_0006E_10251.pdf
    Size:
    23.23Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Kenyhercz, Michael W.
    Chair
    Irish, Joel D.
    Committee
    Druckenmiller, Patrick S.
    Hoover, Kara C.
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11122/4809
    Abstract
    The study of teeth has been a central tenet in biological anthropology since the inception of the field. Teeth have been previously shown to have a high genetic component. The high heritability of teeth has allowed researchers to use them to answer a myriad of anthropological questions ranging from human origins to modern variation due to microevolution. Traditionally, teeth have been studied either morphologically, through the assignment of nonmetric character states, or metrically, through mesiodistal and buccolingual crown measures. Increasingly, geometric morphometric techniques are being used to answer anthropological questions, especially dentally. However, regardless of analytical technique utilized, the biological affinity of modern U.S. individuals has often been limited to examination under a forensic lens (classification of either American Asian, black, Hispanic, or white) without consideration of parent populations. The current study uses geometric morphometric techniques on human molars for two main goals: 1) to examine biological affinity of each of the four largest population groups in regard to population history; and 2) examine the variation within and among the four modern groups as a means of classification. A total of 1,225 dentitions were digitized. Each of the four modern U.S. groups was compared to possible parental groups via discriminant function analysis (DFA). Additionally affinity was examined using Mahalanobis generalized distances (D²) wherein significance of distances between groups was calculated via permutation tests. Furthermore, the D² values were subjected to principal coordinate analysis, or classical multidimensional scaling, to visualize group similarity and dissimilarity. Each group demonstrated affinity with potential parental groups and geographically similar groups as expected given population histories; however, each was also significantly unique from the comparison groups. The four modern U.S. groups were then compared to one another using the same statistical tests. Total among-group correct classifications ranged from 33.9-55.5%, indicating a greater classification than random chance (25%). These classifications were negatively correlated with the reported intermarriage rates for each group: American whites and blacks have the lowest intermarriage rates, which resulted in the highest correct classifications. Conversely, American Asians and Hispanics have the highest intermarriage rates, which resulted in the lowest total correct classifications. Still, the DFA model created from the modern U.S. sample was able to accurately classify a holdout sample. Lastly, a comparison of the three most abundant groups in the U.S. (black, Hispanic, and white), achieved a total correct classification of 72.3%, which is comparable to other studies focusing on the same populations. Restricted gene flow through sociologically constructed barriers and positive assortative mating are the likely factors in the observed variation.
    Description
    Dissertation (Ph.D.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2014
    Table of Contents
    Chapter 1: Introductions -- 1.1 Dental development -- 1.1.1 Molar eruption timing -- 1.2.1 The field concept model -- 1.2.2 The clone model -- 1.2.3 The homeobox model -- 1.2.4 Combined models -- 1.3 Studies of dental morphology -- 1.4 Studies of odontometry -- 1.5 Studies of dental geometric morphometrics -- 1.6 Summary -- 1.7 Dissertation outline -- Chapter 2: Concept of race, biological affinity, social identity, and population histories in the United States -- 2.1 Modern U.S. population history -- 2.1.1 Population history of American whites -- 2.1.1.1 English -- 2.1.1.2 Irish -- 2.1.1.3 German -- 2.1.1.4 Jewish -- 2.1.1.5 Italian -- 2.1.2 Population history of American blacks -- 2.1.3 Population history of American Asians -- 2.1.3.1 Chinese -- 2.1.3.2 Japanese -- 2.1.3.3 Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese -- 2.1.4 Population history of American Hispanics -- 2.1.4.1 Mexican -- 2.1.4.2 Puerto Rican -- 2.1.4.3 Cuban -- 2.2 Discussion -- 2.3 Summary -- Chapter 3: Materials and methods -- 3.1 Samples -- 3.1.1 Modern American -- 3.1.2 Historic parental groups -- 3.1.3 Modern comparison groups -- 3.2 Three-dimensional data collection -- 3.2.1 Geometric morphometrics -- 3.2.2 Data collection and preparation protocol -- 3.3 Statistics -- 3.3.1 Descriptive statistics -- 3.3.2 Principal components analysis -- 3.3.3 Discriminant function analysis -- 3.3.4 Principal coordinate analysis/classical multidimensional scaling -- 3.4 Data processing protocol summary -- 3.5 Discussion -- 3.6 Summary -- Chapter 4: Repeatability, sexual dimorphism, and asymmetry -- 4.1 Repeatability -- 4.2 Sexual dimorphism -- 4.3 Asymmetry -- 4.4 Discussion -- 4.5 Summary -- Chapter 5: Modern American Asian comparison -- 5.1 Maxillary first molar (M¹) -- 5.1.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 5.1.2 Principal components of shape -- 5.1.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 5.1.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 5.2 Maxillary second molar (M²) -- 5.2.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 5.2.2 Principal components of shape -- 5.2.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 5.2.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 5.3 Mandibular first molar (M¹) -- 5.3.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 5.3.2 Principal components of shape -- 5.3.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 5.3.4 principal components of ILDs -- 5.4 mandibular second molar (m2) -- 5.4.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 5.4.2 Principal components of shape -- 5.4.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 5.4.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 5.5 Combined molars -- 5.5.1 Discriminant function analysis -- 5.5.2 Principal coordinate analysis -- 5.6 Discussion -- 5.7 Summary -- Chapter 6: Modern American Black comparison -- 6.1 Maxillary first molar (M¹) -- 6.1.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 6.1.2 Principal components of shape -- 6.1.3 Interlandmark Distances (ILDs) -- 6.1.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 6.2 Maxillary second molar (M²) -- 6.2.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 6.2.2 Principal components of shape -- 6.2.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 6.2.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 6.3 Mandibular first molar (M¹) -- 6.3.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 6.3.2 Principal components of shape -- 6.3.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 6.3.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 6.4 Mandibular second molar (M²) -- 6.4.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 6.4.2 Principal components of shape -- 6.4.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 6.4.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 6.5 Combined molars -- 6.5.1 Discriminant function analysis -- 6.5.2 Principal coordinate analysis -- 6.6 Discussion -- 6.7 Summary -- Chapter 7: Modern american hispanic comparison -- 7.1 Maxillary first molar (M¹) -- 7.1.1 Descriptive Statistics of Principal Components of Shape -- 7.1.2 Principal Components of Shape -- 7.1.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 7.1.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 7.2 Maxillary second molar (M²) -- 7.2.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 7.2.2 Principal components of shape -- 7.2.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 7.2.4 Principal Components of ILDs -- 7.3 Mandibular first molar (M¹) -- 7.3.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 7.3.2 Principal components of shape -- 7.3.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 7.3.4 Principal components of the interlandmark distances -- 7.4 Mandibular second molar (M²) -- 7.4.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 7.4.2 Principal components of shape -- 7.4.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 7.4.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 7.5 Combined Molars -- 7.5.1 Discriminant function analysis -- 7.5.2 Principal coordinate analysis -- 7.6 Discussion -- 7.7 Summary -- Chapter 8: Modern American white comparison -- 8.1 Maxillary first molar (M¹) -- 8.1.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 8.1.2 Principal components of shape -- 8.1.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 8.1.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 8.2 Maxillary second molar (M²) -- 8.2.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 8.2.2 Principal components of shape -- 8.2.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 8.2.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 8.3 Mandibular first molar (M¹) -- 8.3.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 8.3.2 Principal components of shape -- 8.3.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 8.3.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 8.4.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 8.4.2 Principal components of shape -- 8.4.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 8.4.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 8.5 Combined molars -- 8.5.1 Discriminant function analysis -- 8.5.2 Principal coordinate analysis -- 8.6 Discussion -- 8.7 Summary -- Chapter 9: Comparison of modern American groups -- 9.1 Maxillary first molar (M¹) -- 9.1.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 9.1.2 Principal components of shape -- 9.1.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 9.1.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 9.2 Maxillary second molar (M²) -- 9.2.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 9.2.2 Principal components of shape -- 9.2.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 9.2.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 9.3 Mandibular first molar (M¹) -- 9.3.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 9.3.2 Principal components of shape -- 9.3.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 9.3.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 9.4 Mandibular second molar (M²) -- 9.4.1 Descriptive statistics of principal components of shape -- 9.4.2 Principal components of shape -- 9.4.3 Interlandmark distances (ILDs) -- 9.4.4 Principal components of ILDs -- 9.5 Combined molars -- 9.6 Discriminant function analysis -- 9.7 Principal coordinate analysis -- 9.8 An applied example -- 9.9 Three group classification example -- 9.10 Discussion -- 9.11 Summary -- Chapter 10: Discussion -- 10.1 Repeatability, Sexual Dimorphism, and Asymmetry -- 10.1.1 Repeatability -- 10.1.2 Sexual dimorphism -- 10.1.3 Asymmetry -- 10.2 American Asian comparison -- 10.1.3 Asymmetry -- 10.2 American Asian comparison -- 10.3 American Black comparison -- 10.4 American Hispanic comparison -- 10.5 American White comparison -- 10.6 Comparison of modern American groups -- 10.6.1 Shape -- 10.6.2 Size -- 10.6.3 Shape and size -- 10.6.4 Individual molar variability -- 10.6.5 Comparison to other research in U.S. biological affinity -- 10.7. Biological affinity in the United States -- Chapter 11: Conclusions -- 11.1 Repeatability, sexual dimorphism, and asymmetry -- 11.2 American Asian population comparison -- 11.3 American Black population comparison -- 11.4 American Hispanic population comparison -- 11.5 American White population comparison -- 11.6 Comparison of modern American groups -- 11.7. Future implications -- References -- Appendices.
    Date
    2014-12
    Type
    Dissertation
    Collections
    Anthropology

    entitlement

     
    ABOUT US|HELP|BROWSE|ADVANCED SEARCH

    The University of Alaska Fairbanks is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer and educational institution and is a part of the University of Alaska system.

    ©UAF 2013 - 2023 | Questions? ua-scholarworks@alaska.edu | Last modified: September 25, 2019

    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.