TABLE 1. Mean and standard error for complexity (Asfc) and anisotropy (epLsar) measured on different dental facets of upper (UM) and lower molars (lm) with a 200×200 µm scan size.

Category Tooth Dental facet N Asfc epLsar (×10 -3 )
Mean SE Mean SE
Clover lm1 disto-labial protoconid 10 3.86 0.98 3.79 1.11
lm2 10 5.43 1.10 2.17 0.55
lm3 10 4.23 0.66 2.01 0.33
UM1 mesio-lingual paracone 9 3.33 0.53 4.36 1.01
UM2 10 2.22 0.43 1.94 0.40
UM3 8 3.60 0.70 2.58 0.61
UM2 mesio-lingual protocone 10 4.35 1.30 3.37 0.76
Clover + Barley lm1 disto-labial protoconid 10 2.98 0.38 2.93 0.70
lm2 10 4.80 1.17 2.26 0.58
lm3 9 3.93 0.95 2.37 0.61
UM1 mesio-lingual paracone 9 4.10 0.44 4.44 1.23
UM2 10 2.78 0.43 1.90 0.64
UM3 9 4.20 0.87 3.56 0.74
UM2 mesio-lingual protocone 10 4.57 0.42 3.52 0.86
Grass lm1 disto-labial protoconid 10 2.40 0.41 5.70 1.07
lm2 10 3.06 0.58 4.66 1.07
lm3 8 2.97 0.62 3.44 1.20
UM1 mesio-lingual paracone 10 5.69 1.43 6.52 1.26
UM2 10 1.91 0.31 3.29 0.61
UM3 9 3.63 0.84 5.04 0.94
UM2 mesio-lingual protocone 10 3.33 0.78 6.10 1.15

 

 

TABLE 2. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA on complexity (Asfc) and on anisotropy (epLsar) between dietary groups and according to scan options on the disto-labial protoconid facet of the second lower molar.

Source of Variance Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Value Pr(>F)
Asfc          
Group 2 18078 9039 2.338 0.116
Subjects within group 27 104409 3867    
Scan options 3 1652 550.8 2.656 0.054
Group × Scan options 6 3054 509 2.455 0.031
Scan options × Subjects within group 81 16797 207.4    
epLsar          
Group 2 20718 10359 2.905 0.072
Subjects within group 27 96272 3566    
Scan options 3 1738 579.4 1.988 0.122
Group × Scan options 6 1656 276 0.947 0.466
Scan options × Subjects within group 81 23606 291.4    

 

 

TABLE 3. Post hoc pairwise comparisons on complexity (Asfc) and on anisotropy (epLsar) between dietary groups and according to scan options on the disto-labial protoconid facet of the second lower molar. Scan options are as follows: central position scans with 50×50, 100×100, or 200×200 µm size, 4-subsurface median option refers to the median value of four 100×100 µm surface sampled within the 200×200 µm scan on the central position along the dental facet and the 3-spot mean refers the mean values for three 200×200 µm scans sampled from the labial to central to lingual positions along the tooth facet.

  Asfc epLsar
3-spot mean Clover Clover + Barley Grass Clover Clover + Barley Grass
Clover - - - - - -
Clover + Barley 0.338 - - 0.924 - -
Grass 0.213 0.08 - 0.053 0.064 -
200×200 µm Clover Clover + Barley Grass Clover Clover + Barley Grass
Clover - - - - - -
Clover + Barley 0.458 - - 0.648 - -
Grass 0.018 0.296 - 0.006 0.022 -
100×100 µm Clover Clover + Barley Grass Clover Clover + Barley Grass
Clover - - - - - -
Clover + Barley 0.324 - - 0.061 - -
Grass 0.008 0.096 - 0.209 0.043 -
4-subsurface median Clover Clover + Barley Grass Clover Clover + Barley Grass
Clover - - - - - -
Clover + Barley 0.504 - - 0.26 - -
Grass 0.007 0.253 - 0.017 0.025 -
50×50 µm Clover Clover + Barley Grass Clover Clover + Barley Grass
Clover - - - - - -
Clover + Barley 0.094 - - 0.212 - -
Grass 0.028 0.149 - 0.123 0.068 -

 

 

TABLE 4. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA on complexity (Asfc) and on anisotropy (epLsar) between dietary groups and between upper and lower teeth (mesio-lingual facet of the paracone and disto-labial facet of the protoconid).

Source of Variance Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Value Pr(>F)
Asfc          
Group 2 975 487.6 2.759 0.081
Subjects within group 27 4772 176.7    
Tooth 1 2587 2587.3 7.651 0.01
Group × Tooth 2 531 265.4 0.785 0.466
Tooth × Subjects within group 27 9130 338.1    
epLsar          
Group 2 2818 1408.8 3.954 0.031
Subjects within group 27 9619 356.3    
Tooth 1 209 209.07 1.059 0.313
Group × Tooth 2 20 9.82 0.05 0.952
Tooth × Subjects within group 27 5329 197.38    

 

 

TABLE 5. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons on complexity (Asfc) between dietary groups and between upper and lower teeth (mesio-lingual facet of the paracone and disto-labial facet of the protoconid).

    Upper molars
    Clover Clover + Barley Grass
Lower molars Clover 0.018 - -
Clover + Barley - 0.362 -
Grass - - 0.287

 

TABLE 6. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons on anisotropy (epLsar) between dietary groups and between upper and lower teeth (mesio-lingual facet of the paracone and disto-labial facet of the protoconid).

    Upper molars Lower molars
    Clover Clover + Barley Grass Clover Clover + Barley Grass
Lower molars Clover 0.780 - -      
Clover + Barley - 0.155 - 0.891    
Grass - - 0.580 0.003 0.036  
Upper molars Clover            
Clover + Barley 0.679          
Grass 0.137 0.008        

 

TABLE 7. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA on complexity (Asfc) and on anisotropy (epLsar) between dietary groups and between upper and lower teeth (lingual facet of the protocone and disto-labial protoconid facets respectively).

Source of Variance Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Value Pr(>F)
Asfc          
Group 2 1333 666.7 1.904 0.169
Subjects within group 27 9456 350.2    
Tooth 1 15 15 0.061 0.807
Group × Tooth 2 553 276.4 1.124 0.34
Tooth × Subjects within group 27 6638 245.9    
epLsar          
Group 2 2696 1348 4.162 0.027
Subjects within group 27 8744 323.9    
Tooth 1 1144 1144.1 5.722 0.024
Group × Tooth 2 12 5.8 0.029 0.971
Tooth × Subjects within group 27 5399 199.9    

 

 

TABLE 8. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons on complexity (Asfc) and on anisotropy (epLsar) between dietary groups and between upper and lower teeth (lingual facet of the protocone and disto-labial protoconid facets, respectively).

    Upper molars
    Clover Clover + Barley Grass
Lower molars Asfc      
Clover 0.336 - -
Clover + Barley - 0.409 -
Grass - - 0.954
       
epLsar      
Clover 0.3209 - -
Clover + Barley - 0.1363 -
Grass - - 0.0854

 

TABLE 9. One-way repeated measures ANOVAs on each diet categories on Asfc and epLsar between dietary groups and between first, second, and third lower molars (disto-labial protoconid facets).

Source of Variance Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Value Pr(>F)
Asfc          
Group 2 2606 1303 1.753 0.192
Subjects within group 27 20070 743.3    
Tooth 2 2493 1246.3 1.923 0.156
Group × Tooth 4 585 146.1 0.226 0.923
Tooth × Subjects within group 54 34990 648    
epLsar          
Group 2 7200 3600 5.24 0.012
Subjects within group 27 18552 687    
Tooth 2 1938 969 1.61 0.209
Group × Tooth 4 553 138.3 0.23 0.921
Tooth × Subjects within group 54 32499 601.8    

 

 

TABLE 10. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons on anisotropy (epLsar) between dietary groups and between first, second, and third lower molars (disto-labial protoconid facets). Results for complexity (Asfc) are not shown here as the one-way repeated measures ANOVAs did not yield significant p-values.

    Clover Clover + Barley Grass
    lm1 lm2 lm3 lm1 lm2 lm3 lm1 lm2
Clover lm2 0.395 - - - - - - -
lm3 0.384 0.948 - - - - - -
Clover + Barley lm1 0.716 - - - - - - -
lm2 - 0.706 - 0.155 - - - -
lm3 - - 0.769 0.900 0.563 - - -
Grass lm1 0.051 - - 0.002 - - - -
lm2 - 0.038 - - 0.031 - 0.157 -
lm3 - - 0.220 - - 0.504 0.236 0.784

 

 

TABLE 11. Summary of the ANOVA results carried out on 1000 iterations. Results reported as the frequency of significant differences in complexity (Asfc) and anisotropy (epLsar) over 1000 iterations when comparing the three simulated groups (based on grass, clover, and clover/barley-fed ewes, respectively) for samples comprised of 10, 20, or 30 values per samples.

  Frequency (Pval < 0.05)
Simulation Asfc epLsar
n = 10 7.1% 25.6%
n = 20 8.7% 46.6%
n =30 10.0% 72.1%