Dinosaur tooth
Dinosaur teeth have been studied since 1822 when Mary Ann Mantell (1795-1869) and her husband Dr Gideon Algernon Mantell (1790-1852) discovered an "Iguanodon" tooth in Sussex in England. Unlike mammal teeth, individual dinosaur teeth are generally not considered by paleontologists to be diagnostic to the genus or species level for unknown taxa, due morphological convergence and variability between teeth. and many historically named tooth taxa like "Paronychodon" and "Richardoestesia" are today considered "nomina dubia", and are used as form taxa to refer to isolated teeth from other localities displaced considerably in time and space from the  type specimens. However, it is possible to refer isolated teeth to known taxa provided that the tooth morphology is known and the teeth originate from a similar time and place. Some of the most important anatomical information about dinosaur teeth is collected from polished, microscopically thin sections (histology), including the types of dental tissues present, tooth wear, tooth replacement patterns, how the teeth are attached, and the frequency of replacement. The actual material comprising a dinosaur tooth is not very different to teeth in modern animals. Most significant differences are in how the teeth fit together and continually regrew, with  some examples shedding old teeth and others reabsorbing old teeth as they would grind down under chewing throughout a dinosaurs life. Background. The use of histology in paleontology has traditionally been more focused on examining long bones such as the femur or the humerus. Previous work on long bone histology revealed differences in the growth patterns of polar dinosaurs, identified a case of dwarfism in "Europasaurus", reconstructed the life history of "Dysalotosaurus" by examining multiple specimens of different ontogenetic stages, and suggested that "Psittacosaurus" underwent a postural change from a quadruped to biped as it matured. By contrast, dental histology  has not been looked at in great detail in dinosaurs until more recently and there has been an increase in interest in this particular sub-field. Histology studies traditionally rely upon the destructive process of creating and examining thin sections under microscopy, often restricting studies to taxa that have plentiful specimens such as isolated teeth or damaged specimens. While non-destructive means of analysis are sometimes possible through the use of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) or micro computed tomography, much anatomical information is difficult to obtain without creating thin sections. Histology. Histological study is microscopic examination, essential to revealing the  most important aspects of dinosaur dental anatomy. Selection. Different specimens will be suitable for looking at particular anatomical features. For example, specimens with teeth intact within the jaws are necessary to study tooth attachment as this information is lost on isolated teeth. On the other hand, isolated teeth would be sufficient if the goal is to examine wear on the tooth surface. Embedding and sectioning. Thin sections are prepared by first embedding a suitable specimen in epoxy resin. The embedded specimen can then be mounted and cut with a precision saw. The resulting slice is attached to a slide and  ground down, then polished, until it is thin enough, with a suitable surface to be examined with a microscope. Examination. Thin sections are typically examined with a petrographic microscope using plain light and cross-polarized light. Some structures are more easily visible and distinct using one type of light over the other due to differences in their mineral properties. Some specimens can also be examined with a SEM. Dental anatomy. Various major groups of dinosaurs have been examined through histology, these include the carnivorous theropods and herbivorous groups such as the sauropods, hadrosaurs and ceratopsians. Listed below are some of  the dental anatomy that has been identified through histology and interpretations on their significance. Tissue types. There are generally 5 tissue types present in dinosaurs, and these have been found to be identical to those of their closest living non-avian relatives, the crocodilians. One of the most significant findings is that despite differences in their appearance, dinosaur teeth are essentially composed of the same dental tissues found in modern mammals, crocodilians and other amniotes, suggesting that these tissues first evolved in a common ancestor and has been retained ever since. Growth. In some examples viewed in cross section, growth  lines can be observed in the dentine of dinosaur teeth. These are known as lines of von Ebner and represent daily deposition of dentine. Counting these lines provides the age of a tooth and comparing the age of the mature tooth to the replacement tooth in a socket provides an estimate of the tooth replacement rate. The difference in age between the oldest teeth and the youngest teeth is used to determine the rate of tooth replacement. Tooth replacement pattern. Many dinosaur teeth have been found to have a replacement pattern similar to other reptiles where a replacement tooth grows  in the dental lamina on the inside of the jaw before migrating outwards, resorbing part of the growing functional tooth, until ready to erupt and replace it. Tooth attachment. The tooth attachment mode of some dinosaurs has been referred to as thecodonty. This is a condition where the tooth is deeply implanted into the tooth socket with periodontal ligament present, as is the case in crocodilians and mammals. In mammals, thecodonty is associated with dental occlusion while in crocodilians it has been proposed as a means to reduce stresses from bite forces. "Coelophysis" possessed neither dental occlusion nor a strong  bite, raising questions as to why it possesses thecodonty. Dental batteries. One of the most complex dentition found in dinosaurs are the dental batteries present in hadrosaurs (whose members were dominant species across the planet), Neoceratopsia (for example, "Triceratops"), and Rebbachisauridae. These batteries were formed from hundreds of teeth which were stacked in rows upon rows and formed a grinding surface to process plant foods. Histological study of these batteries found that they were not cemented together as previously thought, but that each tooth in the battery was separately moving and supported by ligamenture such that the whole structure was  flexible. Comparable to shark teeth, dental batteries exhibited polyphyodonty, growing new teeth on the inside which migrated over time to replace the outer teeth. Unlike sharks however, who lose all of their old teeth, teeth in the rapidly growing dental battery would wear completely down and be reabsorbed by the renewing structure around it. The batteries were formed by the teeth growing fast and maturing early, to the point that the pulp cavity of individual teeth—usually filled with cells and connective tissue—were totally filled with dentine before it even erupted. The lack of pulp in the tooth post -eruption means that the tooth was essentially dead and able to be completely worn away through use, and replaced without the risk of exposing the normally sensitive dental pulp to infection and pain. While other dinosaurs, such as some ceratopsians and sauropods, also possessed dental batteries, they all evolved independently and differ in some form or function from those of hadrosaurs. This shows that some dinosaurs had evolved extremely sophisticated chewing capabilities.