“…As we know, its analysis enables a reconstruction of the level of health and, indirectly, also the economic and social status of the examined population. These studies reveal a general tendency that populations living at a high social level show, on average, a lower prevalence of enamel hypoplasia than communities in poor living conditions (e.g., Nakayama 2016, belonging to this individual was as follows (numbered according to FDI 1971): upper second incisor (22), upper first 14and second premolars (15, 25), upper first (26) and second (17) molars, lower first incisor (41), canine (43), both first premolars (44, 34), and first (36), second (37), and third (38, 48) molars (Fig. 2).…”