Relationship between masseter muscle thickness and overbite values in a Nigerian population

  • Olabimpe Soyoye Abigail
  • Otuyemi Donald Olayinka
  • Kolawole Kikelomo Adebanke
  • Ayoola Oluwagbemiga Oluwole

Abstract




Objective: This study determined the relationship between masseter muscle thickness and overbite values among Nige- rians. Methods: The subjects included 66 consecutive patients (21 males and 45 females) who presented for xed ortho- dontic appliance treatment. Overbite values were measured from standard lateral cephalometric radiographs taken for all patients,who were thereafter divided into three groups of re- duced overbite (n=22, mean -1.11+ 2.18mm), normal overbite (n=22, mean 2.59+0.50mm) and increased overbite (n=22, mean 5.21+1.39mm). The masseter muscle thickness of each patient was measured bilaterally using ultrasonography. Associations between masseter muscle thickness and different overbite values were analyzed using unpaired t-test, ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparison analysis. Results: Mean masseter muscle thickness was 11.23 ± 2.40 mm during relaxation and 12.81 ± 2.64 mm during contraction for study participants. The masseter muscle on the habitual side of mastication of parti- cipants was generally thicker but the difference was not statis- tically signi cant (P>0.05). There was a progressive increase in masseter muscle thickness from reduced overbite through normal overbite to increased overbite groups and the differen- ces were statistically signi cant (P<0.01). Tukey’s multiple com- parisons showed signi cant differences between all the three overbite groups (P<0.05). Conclusion: There was a direct rela- tionship between the muscle thickness and overbite variations.




References

1. Vreeke M1, Langenbach GE, Korfage JA, Zentner A, Grünheid T. The masticatory system under varying functional load. Part 1: Structural adaptation of rabbit jaw muscles to reduced masticatory load. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Aug;33(4):359-64. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq083.
2. Kiliaridis S, Georgiakaki I, Katsars C. Masseter muscle thickness and maxillary dental arch width. Eur J Orthod. 2003 Jun;25(3):259-63.
3. Pepicelli A, Woods M, Briggs C. The mandibular muscles and their importance in orthodontics: A contemporary review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Dec;128(6):774-80.
4. Chan HJ, Woods M, Stellac D. Mandibular muscle morphology in children with different vertical facial patterns: A 3-dimensional computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jan;133(1):10.e1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.013.
5. 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 Apr;41(4):323-32.
6. Pro tt WR, Fields HW, Saver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. Mosby; 2007. p. 130-61.
7. Kiliaridis S, Katsars C. The effects of myotonic dystrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy on orofacial and dentofacial morphology. Acta Odontol Scand. 1998 Dec;56(6):369-74.
8. Hunt NP, Shah R, Sinanan A, Lewis M. Muscling in on malocclusions: Current concepts on the role of muscles in the aetology and treatment of malocclusion. J Orthod. 2006 Sep;33(3):187-97.
9. Opdebeeck H, Bell WH. The short face syndrome. Am J Orthod. 1978 May;73(5):499-511.
10. Schendel SA, Eisenfeld J, Bell WH, Epker BN, Mishelevich DJ. The long face syndrome: Vertical maxillary excess. Am J Orthod. 1976 Oct;70(4):398-408.
11. Weijs W A, Hillen B. Relationships between masticatory muscle Cross-section and skull shape. J Dent Res. 1984 Sep;63(9):1154-7
12. Hannam A G, Wood W W. Relationships between the size and spatial morphology of human mas- seter and medial pterygid muscles, the craniofacial skeleton, and jaw biomechanics. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1989 Dec;80(4):429-45.
13. Serra MD, Gavião MBD, Uchôa MNDS. The use of ultrasound in the investiga-
tion of the muscles of mastication. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2008 Dec;34(12):1875-84. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2008.05.009.
14. Raadsheer MC, van Eijden TM, van Spronsen PH, van Ginkel FC, Kiliaridis S, Prahl-Andersen B.
A comparison of human masseter muscle thickness measured by ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Oral Biol. 1994 Dec;39(12):1079-84.
15. Benington PC, Gardener JE, Hunt NP. Masseter muscle volume measured using ultrasonography and its relationship with facial morphology. Eur J Orthod. 1999 Dec;21(6):659-70.
16. Eng J. Sample sze estimation: How many individuals should be studied. Radiology. 2003 May;227(2):309-13.
17. Pro tt WR, Fields HW, Saver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. Mosby; 2007. p. 3-23.
18. Kiliaridis S, Kälebo P. Masseter muscle thickness measured by ultrasonography and its relation to facial morphology. J Dent Res. 1991 Sep;70(9):1262-5.
19. Egwu OA, Njoku CO, Enwunonu EO, Koha UU, Eteudo AN, Mgbachi CE. Assessment of masseter muscle thickness in an adult nigerian population: an ultrasound based study. Int J Biomed Res. 2012;3(3):143-6.
20. Satıroglu F, Arun T, Isik F. Comparative data on facial morphology and muscle thickness using ultrasonography. Eur J Orthod. 2005 Dec;27(6):562-7.
21. Kubota M, Nakan H, Sanjo I, Satoh K, Sanjo T, Kamegai T, et al. Maxillofacial morphology and masseter muscle thickness in adults. Eur J Orthod. 1998 Oct;20(5):535-42.
22. Rani S, Ravi MS. Masseter muscle thickness in different skeletal morphology: An ultrasonographic study. Indian J Dent Res. 2010 Jul-Sep;21(3):402-7.
23. 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 Jun;100(3):164-71.
24. Raadsheer MC, van Eijden TM, van Ginkel FC, Prahl-Andersen B. Contribution of jaw muscle size and craniofacial morphology to human bite force magnitude. J Dent Res. 1999 Jan;78(1):31-42.
25. He T, Olsson S, Daugaard JR. Functional in uence of masticatory muscles on the bre characteristics and capillary distribution in growing ferrets (Mustela putonusfuro)—a histochemical analysis. Arch Oral Biol. 2004 Dec;49(12):983-9.
26. Kiliaridis S, Mahboubi PH, Raadsheer MC, Katsaros C. Ultrasonographic thickness of the masseter muscle in growing individuals with unilateral crossbite. Angle Orthod. 2007 Jul;77(4):607-11.
27. Marquezin MC, Andrade AS, Gameiro GH, Gaviao MB,Benington PMC. Evaluation of sexual dimorphismand the relationship between craniofacial, dental arch and masseter muscle characteristics in mixed dentition stage. Rev CEFAC. 2014 Jul-Aug; 16(4):1231-8. doi: 10.1590/1982-021620149613.
28. Pereira LJ, Gaviao MBD, Bonjardim LR, Castelo PM, van Der Bilt A . Muscle thickness, bite force, and cranio-facial dimensions in adolescents with signs and symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction. Eur J Orthod. 2007 Feb;29(1):72-8.
29. Van Spronsen PH, Weijs WA, Valk J, Prahl-Andersen B, Van Ginkel FC. A comparison of jaw muscle cross-sections of long-face and normal adults. J Dent Res. 1992 Jun;71(6):1279-85.
30. Rasheed SA, Munshi AK. Electromyographic and ultrasonographic evaluation of the circum-oral musculature in children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1996 Summer;20(4):305-11.
31. Hannam AG, McMillan AS. Internal Organization in the Human Jaw Muscles. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1994;5(1):55-89.
Published
2017-10-24
How to Cite
SOYOYE ABIGAIL, Olabimpe et al. Relationship between masseter muscle thickness and overbite values in a Nigerian population. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, [S.l.], p. e17056, oct. 2017. ISSN 1677-3225. Available at: <https://www.fop.unicamp.br/bjos/index.php/bjos/article/view/59>. Date accessed: 20 july 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v16i1.8650499.
Section
Original Research