Evaluation of the Relationship between the Dimensions of Masseter Muscle and the Vertical Dimensions of the Face and Mandible Using the CT Scan Technique
Document Type : مقالههای پژوهشی
Authors
1 Dentist, Isfahan, Iran.
2 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
3 Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
10.48305/v0i0.1617
Abstract
Introduction: Since the matrix functional theory is critically important in explaining craniofacial growth and development, it is necessary to evaluate the relationship between the function of masticatory muscles, including the masseter muscle, and craniofacial growth and development, especially in the vertical dimension. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the masseter muscle size and the vertical dimensions of the face and mandible using computed tomography scanning.
Materials & Methods: In this analytical-descriptive study, three-dimensional CT scan facial images of 190 patients (men and women) were evaluated. Then measurements were made on two sides (left and right) with Workstation software. The width of masseter muscle was measured on the axial view, and its length and thickness were measured on the coronal view. The ramus height was measured on both sides, and the face vertical dimension was measured in the anterior and posterior areas. At the end of the measurements, no significant difference was observed between the two sides of the face. The data were analyzed with t-test and Pearson’s correlation coefficient using SPSS 22 (p value < 0.05).
Results: The mandibular ramus length showed a significant difference between the two genders (p value = 0.0001), with males exhibiting a longer ramus compared to women. There was a direct and significant correlation between mandibular ramus length and the masseter muscle width, length, and thickness, in all the subjects (p value = 0.0001). Investigation of the correlation between the vertical dimension of the face and masseter muscle dimensions and the palatal and mandibular plane angles (p value = 0.676 (and the inclination of the mandibular plane in all the patients showed a direct but non-significant correlation (p value = 0.993).
Conclusion: Changes in the masseter muscle dimensions affects the skeletal size, craniofacial morphology, and skeletal angles.
Key words: Mandible, Masseter muscle, Vertical dimension.
Materials & Methods: In this analytical-descriptive study, three-dimensional CT scan facial images of 190 patients (men and women) were evaluated. Then measurements were made on two sides (left and right) with Workstation software. The width of masseter muscle was measured on the axial view, and its length and thickness were measured on the coronal view. The ramus height was measured on both sides, and the face vertical dimension was measured in the anterior and posterior areas. At the end of the measurements, no significant difference was observed between the two sides of the face. The data were analyzed with t-test and Pearson’s correlation coefficient using SPSS 22 (p value < 0.05).
Results: The mandibular ramus length showed a significant difference between the two genders (p value = 0.0001), with males exhibiting a longer ramus compared to women. There was a direct and significant correlation between mandibular ramus length and the masseter muscle width, length, and thickness, in all the subjects (p value = 0.0001). Investigation of the correlation between the vertical dimension of the face and masseter muscle dimensions and the palatal and mandibular plane angles (p value = 0.676 (and the inclination of the mandibular plane in all the patients showed a direct but non-significant correlation (p value = 0.993).
Conclusion: Changes in the masseter muscle dimensions affects the skeletal size, craniofacial morphology, and skeletal angles.
Key words: Mandible, Masseter muscle, Vertical dimension.
1. Azaroual MF, Fikri M, Abouqal R, Benyahya H, Zaoui F. Relationship between dimensions of muscles of mastication (masseter and lateral pterygoid) and skeletal dimensions: Study of 40 cases. Int Orthod 2014; 12(1): 111-24.
2. Proffit, William R. Contemporary orthodontics contemporary orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier/Mosby; 2013. p. 46.
3. Enlow DH, Hans MG. Essentials of facial growth. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 1996. p. 239.
4. Bakke M, Tuxen A, Vilmann P, Jensen BR, Vilmann A, Toft M. Ultrasound image of human masseter muscle related to bite force, electromyography, facial morphology, and occlusal factors. Scand J Dent Res 1992; 100(3): 164-71.
5. Kiliaridis S, Georgiakaki I, Katsaros C. Masseter muscle thickness and maxillary dental arch width. Eur J Orthod 2003; 25(3): 259-63.
6. Chandwani B, Ceneviz C, Mehta N, Scrivani S. Incidence of bruxism in TMD population. N Y State Dent J 2011; 77(5): 54-7.
7. Shaw RB Jr, Katzel EB, Koltz PF, Yaremchuk MJ, Girotto JA, Kahn DM, et al. Aging of the facial skeleton: aesthetic implications and rejuvenation strategies. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127(1): 374-83.
8. White SC, Phroah MJ. Oral radiology: Principles and interpretation. 7th ed. St. Louis: Mosby/Elsevier; 2014. p. 209-211.
9. Jafari M, Ghasemi M, Dehghan Manshadi F, Akbarzadeh Baghban AR. Measuring the average thickness of masseter muscle via ultrasonography in healthy young males. J Rehab Med 2017; 6(1): 169-74.
10. Charalampidou M1, Kjellberg H, Georgiakaki I, Kiliaridis S. Masseter muscle thickness and mechanical advantage in relation to vertical craniofacial morphology in children. Acta Odontol Scand 2008; 66(1): 23-30.
11. Kochel J, Meyer-Marcotty P, Kochel M, Schneck S, Stellzig-Eisenhauer A. 3D soft tissue analysis--part 2: vertical parameters. J Orofac Orthop 2010; 71(3): 207-20.
12. Shaw RB Jr, Katzel EB, Koltz PF, Kahn DM, Girotto JA, Langstein HN. Aging of the mandible and its aesthetic implications. Plast Reconter Surg 2010; 125(1): 332-42.
13. Kiliaridis S, Mahboubi PH, Raadsheer MC, Katsaros C. Ultrasonographic thickness of the masseter muscle in growing individuals with unilateral crossbite. Angle Orthod 2007; 77(4): 607-11.
14. Tuxen A, Bakke M, Pinholt EM. Comparative data from young men and women on masseter muscle fibres, function and facial morphology Arch Oral Biol 1999; 44(6): 509-18.
15. Raadsheer MC, Kiliaridis S, van Eijden TM, van Ginkel FC, Prahl-Andersen B. Masseter muscle thickness in growing individuals and its relation to facial morphology. Arch Oral Biol 1996; 41(4): 323-32.
16. Lione R, Kiliaridis S, Noviello A, Franchi L, Antonarakis GS, Cozza P. Evaluation of masseter muscles in relation to treatment with removable bite-blocks in dolichofacial growing subjects: A prospective controlled study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 151(6): 1058-64.
)