The science of analyzing, identifying, and comparing microtrace evidence is called microanalysis. It should be distinguished from the science of microscopy because the word micro in microanalysis refers to the size of the evidence, not the use of a microscope. Many other types of instrumentation are used by forensic microanalysts besides microscopes. It's not uncommon to see the name of the field shortened to hairs, fiber, paint, and glass. It's difficult to gain a perspective on this field.
New technologies are, of course, being invented every day.
On the other hand, forensic microanalysis is ideal for operating under the Daubert standard since along with instrumentation and machine diagnostics, it's usually easy to calculate things like Type I and II error. Not so long ago, a series of Canadian studies by Gaudette sparked a controversy in this field over the evidentiary use of statistical probabilities. Others didn't follow this lead. Almost all microanalysts work in crime labs, and when microtrace evidence of any kind is sent for analysis, the job is either marked for identification, comparison, or both. It's up to each analyst in deciding the number and type of tests to run, and identification tests must be comprehensive to exclude all other substances that the sample might be.