Extension of the mesowear method to include the lower cheek teeth of ruminants will dramatically increase sample sizes and thus the statistical power of paleodietary inferences. However, the mesowear method of Fortelius and Solounias, which was designed for application to the upper molars, does not effectively separate ruminant species by diet when applied to the lower teeth. Upper and lower mesowear scores have sometimes been compared among non‐analogous cusps (i.e. the buccal cusps of the maxillary teeth, which experience incursion and the buccal cusps of the mandibular teeth, which experience excursion during the chewing stroke). We therefore compare mesowear scores between the buccal cusps of maxillary cheek teeth and the lingual cusps of mandibular cheek for a large sample of ruminants because both cusps experience incursion during the chewing stroke. Using the original mesowear scoring method, we find dietary signal in both the maxillary and mandibular cheek teeth and a high correlation between them using both non‐phylogenetic and phylogenetic comparative methods. Noting unique patterns of mesowear among the mandibular teeth, we also propose a new scoring method with additional wear categories that improves dietary inference when applied to the lower teeth and is highly repeatable. We also find that mandibular mesowear scores are consistently lower than for their maxillary counterparts. Although differential wear among the upper and lower teeth is much less apparent when applying our new scoring method, wear differences might relate to anisodonty (i.e. mandibular cheek teeth are narrower). Overall, we recommend our new scoring method for application to the lingual cusps of the lower second molars of fossil ruminants.

Objectives To compare patients' experiences with the Invisalign Teen with Mandibular Advancement® (ITMA) and Twin Block (TB) appliances, both initially and after several months of wear. Materials and Methods Sixty-eight patients completed an anonymous survey after at least 2 months of wearing ITMA or TB. Forty-five patients treated with ITMA (18 boys, 27 girls, mean age 13.6 years, SD ± 1.54) and 23 patients treated with TB (13 boys, 10 girls, mean age 10.60 years, SD ± 1.92) were included. Results More patients using the TB found their appliance to be visually intimidating as compared with patients using the ITMA (21.7% vs 8.9%). TB was more noticeable than the ITMA (69.6% vs 25%). Appliance insertion was more difficult for TB patients (21.8% vs 4.44% for ITMA). After several months, there were more reports of tooth soreness and lip/cheek soreness in the ITMA group. TB patients were more embarrassed even after several months (14.3% vs 0% for ITMA). More TB patients required extra appointments for breakage (50% vs 22.2% for ITMA). Speech, drooling, and jaw and lip/cheek soreness worsened initially for both groups but improved over time. There were no differences between the groups regarding visible facial changes, satisfaction with treatment experience, or time to acclimatize to the appliance. Conclusions TB and ITMA patients shared similar experiences for most of the parameters measured, but there were significant differences between the groups regarding appliance wear and management, discomfort, and function.