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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.