Skip to main content
Progress in Orthodontics
Download PDF

Relationship between craniofacial skeletal patterns and anatomic characteristics of masticatory muscles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Progress in Orthodontics volume 25, Article number: 36 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The anatomic characteristics of the masticatory muscles differ across craniofacial skeletal patterns.

Objective

To identify differences in the anatomic characteristics of masticatory muscles across different sagittal and vertical craniofacial skeletal patterns.

Eligibility criteria

Studies measuring the thickness, width, cross-sectional area (CSA), volume and orientation of masticatory muscles in healthy patients of different sagittal (Class I, Class II, and Class III) and/or vertical (normodivergent, hypodivergent, and hyperdivergent) patterns.

Information sources

Unrestricted literature searches in 8 electronic databases/registers until December 2023.

Risk of bias and synthesis of results

Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with a customised tool were performed independently in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analysis and assessment of the certainty of clinical recommendations with the GRADE approach were conducted.

Results

34 studies (37 publications) were selected with a total of 2047 participants and data from 16 studies were pulled in the meta-analysis. Masseter muscle thickness in relaxation was significantly greater by 1.14 mm (95% CI 0.74–1.53 mm) in hypodivergent compared to normodivergent patients while it was significantly decreased in hyperdivergent patients by − 1.14 mm (95% CI − 1.56 to − 0.73 mm) and − 2.28 mm (95% CI − 2.71 to − 1.85 mm) compared to normodivergent and hypodivergent patients respectively. Similar significant differences were seen between these groups in masseter muscle thickness during contraction as well as masseter muscle CSA and volume. Meta-analyses could not be performed for sagittal categorizations due to insufficient number of studies.

Conclusions

Considerable differences in masseter muscle thickness, CSA and volume were found across vertical skeletal configurations being significantly reduced in hyperdivergent patients; however, results should be interpreted with caution due to the high risk of bias of the included studies. These variations in the anatomic characteristics of masticatory muscles among different craniofacial patterns could be part of the orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning process.

Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022371187.

Introduction

Rationale

Craniofacial growth begins in-utero during embryogenesis with the migration and differentiation of neural crest cells. Tissue organization and growth patterns are highly dictated by the expression of genes involved in these processes. However, environmental factors can potentially alter this pre- or post-natal growth [1]. It has been shown that muscles and the stresses they exert on the bone can have an important influence on its remodelling and morphology [2,3,4]. Several studies have investigated the relationship between muscle thickness and craniofacial dimensions. Van Spronsen et al. [5] highlighted a significant correlation between the cross-sectional area of the anterior temporal muscle and facial width. Kitai et al. [6] suggested that the muscular variables are significantly correlated with the bizygomatic arch width and temporal fossa but are not correlated with the cranial width. Chan et al. [7] found that growing subjects with thicker masticatory muscles are more likely to have a greater bizygomatic arch width.

Differences in muscle fibre orientation and insertion are also related to different dentofacial morphologies with the masticatory muscles of individuals with a skeletal hypodivergent pattern being more uprightly oriented and anteriorly inserted compared to those with skeletal hyperdivergent patterns [8]. Takada et al. [9] suggest an association between vertically oriented masseter muscles that are anteriorly attached on the mandible and a long posterior face height accompanied with a flat mandibular plane and an acute gonial angle in hypodivergent children. On the other hand, Proctor and De Vincenzo report more horizontally oriented masseter muscles relative to the cranial base, Frankfort horizontal and the palatal plane in hyperdivergent individuals [10].

When masticatory forces were evaluated in adult individuals, patients with less powerful and thinner masticatory muscles were dolichocephalic. Conversely, subjects with strong masticatory muscles have a rather brachycephalic facial pattern [11, 12]. This difference in masticatory muscle strength between normodivergent and hyperdivergent individuals is not evident in children aged 6–11 years, indicating a possible inability of the mandibular elevator muscles to gain strength in the hyperdivergent group with growth [13]. Additionally, these differences in muscular force capacity are reflected in muscle thickness as patients affected by degenerative neuromuscular diseases have thinner muscles of lower strength that directly affect craniofacial morphology [14].

The function of the masticatory muscles is linked to increased stress on the jaws and the formation of bone, potentially influencing areas such as the gonial angle [11]. This part of the mandible serves as a point of attachment for the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles, thus variations in their size and activity could impact mandibular shape and, consequently, overall dentofacial morphology. According to Wolff’s law (1870), bone structure is influenced by muscle thickness, implying a connection between muscle function and the internal skeletal structure and form [15, 16]. An inverse correlation has been reported between masseter muscle thickness and anterior face height, mandibular plane angle and the gonial angle, while masseter muscle thickness was positively correlated with mandibular ramus height and posterior facial height [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27].

Diverse methods have been used for the assessments of masticatory muscle attributes. Muscle biopsies have been employed to analyse characteristics such as muscle fibre type, composition and thickness, but due to its invasive nature is not used routinely [28]. Alternatively, muscular functional activity and force generation can be assessed with electromyography and bite force measurements respectively while muscular dimensions are measured using computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. From the imaging techniques, ultrasonography (US) is the most widespread method for the analysis of the thickness of masticatory muscles for its advantages such as the absence of ionizing radiation, convenience, and rapidity [27, 29,30,31,32].

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review was to assess in a systematic manner the available evidence regarding the potential relationships between craniofacial patterns (sagittal and vertical) and masticatory muscle macroscopic anatomic characteristics, such as thickness (depth), width, cross-sectional area, volume and angle orientation assessed with any 2D or 3D imaging method.

Methods

Protocol registration, research question and eligibility criteria

The reporting of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is based on the PRISMA guidelines [33].

The study protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022371187).

The research question was whether any differences exist between the size and/or orientation characteristics of the muscles of mastication in healthy humans and different craniofacial patterns (sagittal or vertical). The eligibility criteria were based on the PECO framework (population, exposure, comparator, outcomes) and are described in detail in Supplementary Table 1.

Information sources and search strategy

The databases, registers, websites, organizations, and other sources searched to identify potentially eligible studies as well as all search strategies are described in Supplementary Table 2. The last electronic literature search was performed on December 2023 and no limitations regarding publication year, language, status, or type were imposed (apart from filters for studies on humans, where they existed). Additionally, the reference lists of all included studies and all relevant systematic reviews were checked for additional studies. The literature search was carried out by two reviewers independently (DT and AKP).

Study selection

The selection of studies was performed by two independent reviewers (DT, AKP) based on screening titles and abstracts. The full-text versions of the pre-selected articles were accessed to assess their eligibility. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion while in the absence of consensus, a third reviewer (GSA) was consulted until consensus was reached. All relevant citations were imported to a reference manager software (EndNote® 20, Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA) for de-duplication. Researchers were not blinded to the authors of included studies.

Data collection and data items

The data collection procedure was carried out by two independent reviewers (DT and AKP) using pre-designed and pre-piloted forms (Supplementary Table 3) and extracted data were imported in digital spreadsheets. Discrepancies were resolved in the same way as above by consulting another author (GSA). Researchers were not blinded to the authors of included studies.

Study risk of bias assessment risk of bias within individual studies

A customized risk of bias tool was used for assessment of internal validity / reporting quality of each individual study independently and in duplicate by two investigators (DT and AKP). This tool was tailored to the scope of this review’s eligible studies and based on items from The Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklists for cross-sectional studies and the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) [34, 35]. The specific domains / questions of the customized tool can be seen in Supplementary Table 4.

Summary measures, data synthesis and certainty assessment

The main objective of our systematic study and meta-analysis was to investigate the differences, if these exist, between the muscles of mastication and the sagittal or vertical craniofacial patterns in healthy humans. The Mean Difference (MD) with its 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was used to estimate anatomic characteristics in masticatory muscle differences among Class I, II and III or among normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergent patient groups.

As anatomic characteristics in masticatory muscles were expected to vary according to patient-related (chronological age, developmental growth stage, sex) or measurement-related factors (radiographical technical characteristics, method error, cut-off values used for categorization), a random-effects model was a priori deemed (using clinical / methodological justification [36]) most appropriate to incorporate this variability and estimate the average distribution of effects across studies.

The heterogeneity of the studies was determined using I2 statistics as well as Tau2 statistics [37, 38]. Pooled mean differences between groups (normo-, hypo- and hyperdivergent) were obtained with multivariate mixed-effects linear models for meta-analyses. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the findings. The trim and fill approach was used to correct the pooled mean differences for a potential publication bias. Due to the low number of studies, the latest was used only on the most frequently reported outcome (masseter thickness). All statistical tests were two-sided with a significance level of 0.05. Statistical analyses were carried out with the package Metafor v3.8-1 for R v4.0.2 (R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ (https://www.r-project.org/)). The certainty of evidence (confidence in effect estimates) for both the primary and secondary outcomes as per the PECO table (Supplementary Table 1) was assessed using the GRADE approach [39].

Results

Study selection

A total of 3868 studies were retrieved from the databases, which after deduplication, selection according to title, abstract and full text were eliminated to 37 studies included in the present review. Studies were excluded in full text if they assessed outcomes different to the ones of interest or did not include at least two sagittal or vertical groups for comparison. The flow diagram of the studies retrieved from the databases is described in detail in the PRISMA diagram in Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 5. For the quantitative analysis, only 6 studies were included for the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the masseter, 7 for the volume of the masseter, 10 for the thickness of the masseter under relaxation, and 8 for the thickness of the masseter under contraction (during biting). The quantitative analysis focuses solely on patient divergence (hypodivergent vs. normodivergent vs. hyperdivergent), while for the sagittal relationship (Class I vs. Class II vs. Class III), an insufficient number of studies (or subjects) have been published, preventing a meta-analysis from being conducted.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart diagram

Full size image

Study characteristics

Thirty-four (34) studies (37 publications) were included in the present review (28 prospective, 6 retrospective and 1 was of unclear study design). Muscular anatomic characteristics were measured using ultrasonography in 17 studies, computed tomography (CT) in 10 studies and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 8 studies. Fourteen studies were conducted in Europe, 13 in Asia, 4 in Oceania, 3 in Africa and one in the Americas. Four studies classified the patients in sagittal skeletal patterns (Class I, II, III), twenty studies classified the patients in vertical skeletal patterns (hypodivergent, normodivergent, hyperdivergent) and ten studies classified them both in sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns. Seven studies reported on children, twenty studies on adults, four studies had mixed groups and three studies did not report on the age of their sample. The detailed characteristics of the included studies are presented in detail in Supplementary Tables 6–8.

Risk of bias in individual studies

The risk of bias of the included studies is presented in Supplementary Table 9. In general, the included studies exhibited high risk of bias. Even though the domain of stating aims and objectives was clear, there were several domains that were generally unclear such as the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the samples and the cut-off points of the cephalometric values used to categorize the subjects in the sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns. The domains that were the most problematic were related to the domains of sample size calculation and justification, identification and accounting of confounding factors (age, sex, sagittal classification for studies that grouped per vertical and vice-versa, functional shifts, asymmetries, linear or curved probe used) in the analyses, incomplete reporting of demographics and results (12 studies with vertical categorization and 5 studies with sagittal categorization reported only correlations between cephalometric and muscular parameters), calibration and experience of the assessors of the muscles. Additionally, most of the studies were unclear with regard to if the assessor of the muscles was blinded to the cephalometric variables.

Results of individual studies and data synthesis

Due to the lack of eligible similar studies from which data could be pulled according to sagittal skeletal categorization, quantitative analysis was feasible only for patients categorized in the vertical dimension.

Descriptive statistics for the cross-sectional area of the masseter muscle (at relaxation and contraction), lateral pterygoid muscle, medial pterygoid muscle, and temporalis muscle are described in Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the volume of the masseter muscle (at relaxation and contraction), lateral pterygoid muscle and medial pterygoid muscle are described in Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the angle of insertion of the masseter muscle relative to the Frankfort horizontal plane are described in Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the width and thickness of the masseter muscle (at relaxation and contraction) are described in Table 4.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the muscle CSAs per vertical group
Full size table
Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the muscle volumes per vertical group
Full size table
Table 3 Descriptive statistics for the angle of insertion of the masseter muscle relative to Frankfort horizontal plane per vertical group
Full size table
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for the width and thickness of the masseter muscle per vertical group
Full size table

According to the meta-analysis, considerable differences were seen in the masseter muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), volume, thickness in relaxation and thickness in contraction among the three vertical groups. Regarding the comparisons between hypodivergent and normodivergent patients, hypodivergent patients had significantly greater masseter CSA by 0.50 mm2 (95% CI 0.05–0.95 mm2); volume by 1.65 cm3 (95% CI 0.45–2.85 cm3); masseter thickness at relaxation by 1.14 mm (95% CI 0.74–1.53 mm); and masseter thickness at contraction by 1.61 mm (95% CI 0.96–2.27 mm). Regarding the comparisons between hyperdivergent and normodivergent patients, hyperdivergent patients had significantly decreased masseter CSA by − 0.54 mm2 (95% CI − 0.95 to − 0.12 mm2); volume by − 2.64 cm3 (95% CI − 3.90 to − 1.38 cm3); masseter thickness at relaxation by − 1.14 mm (95% CI − 1.56 to − 0.73 mm); and masseter thickness at contraction by − 1.00 mm (95% CI − 1.65 to − 0.35 mm). Regarding the comparisons between hyperdivergent and hypodivergent patients, hyperdivergent patients had significantly decreased masseter CSA by − 1.04 mm2 (95% CI − 1.49 to − 0.59 mm2); volume by − 4.29 cm3 (95% CI − 5.52 to − 3.06 cm3); masseter thickness at relaxation by − 2.28 mm (95% CI − 2.71 to − 1.85 mm); and masseter thickness at contraction by − 2.61 mm (95% CI − 3.26 to − 1.97 mm) (Table 5, Figs. 2, 3, 4, and 5).

Table 5 Pairwise comparisons of masseter muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), volume, thickness at relaxation and at maximal bite per vertical categorization
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of masseter cross-sectional area (CSA) in normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergent patients

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of masseter volume in normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergent patients

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of masseter thickness at relaxation in normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergent patients

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of masseter thickness at bite in normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergent patients

Full size image

A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted for each measured dimension. When the study by Tekucheva et al. [40] was removed from the analysis of CSA, the between-study variability (Tau2) decreased from 0.61 to 0.37. However, the heterogeneity was still statistically significant (p < 0.0001), and the difference between groups remained significant (p < 0.0001). The same occurred when excluding the study by Gregor et al. [41] (which comprises a pool of male patients only); the between-study variability (Tau2) decreased from 21.32 to 8.43, but the heterogeneity was still significant (p < 0.0001), and the difference between groups remained statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Regarding muscle thickness, the studies by Lione et al. [42] and Noviello et al. [43] (composed of the same sample of patients) reported lower values than other studies. If these are excluded from the statistical analysis (both for the resting and contraction conditions), Tau2 decreased from 3.36 to 1.69. However, the heterogeneity and difference between groups remained statistically significant (p < 0.0001).

Fourteen studies categorized the included patients according to their sagittal skeletal relationships as Class I, II and III. Due to heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of the outcomes, meta-analysis could not be performed. Ariji et al. [44] compared the masseter muscle angle of insertion and CSA between Class I and Class III patients and found that the inclination was significantly decreased, and the CSA significantly increased in the Class I group. Another study [45] reported the anatomical characteristics (length and angle) of the masseter muscle in the three different classes of patients (Class I; II; III). Their results revealed that the most acute orientation angle (67.2 ± 6.6°) was found in Class II subjects, while the most obtuse orientation angle (81.6 ± 6.8°) was observed in Class III group; however, no significant differences were found in muscle length among the three groups. Kim et al. [46] reported masseter, medial pterygoid, lateral pterygoid and temporalis muscle thickness separately in males and females in class I and class III patients. There was a significant negative correlation only between master muscle thickness in Class III patients and the ANB angle. Kim et al. [47] compared masseter muscle volume/length ratio between Class I and Class III patients and this was significantly greater in Class I patients. Rani and Ravi [32] report the masseter thickness of class I patients and class II patients, making a distinction between patients with maxillary excess and patients with mandibular growth deficiency. The masseter thickness of Class I patients was similar to Class II patients with maxillary excess but class II patients with mandibular deficiency showed thinner masseter thicknesses. Zepa et al. [48] compared the anatomical characteristics (CSA; thickness; volume; length; and width) of the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles between Class II and Class III patients. In Class III patients, there was a tendency for all masseter variables to be higher; however, they did not reach statistical significance. On the contrary, the volume and the thickness of the medial pterygoid muscles were significantly greater in the Class III patients compared to Class II patients.

Five studies reported only correlations between muscular anatomic characteristics and sagittal skeletal classification with mainly insignificant findings (Supplementary Table 7). The certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE rating was judged as being very low, and the reasons for downgrading were study design (observational, cross-sectional), individual study limitations due to high risk of bias, inconsistency of the results due to great heterogeneity, and imprecision due to small sample sizes and wide CIs (Supplementary Tables 10–12).

Discussion

General interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence

The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis show significant differences in the parameters related to masseter muscle volume, CSA, width and thickness across different groups of patients categorized by their facial vertical divergence. In general, it was shown that hyperdivergent patients had smaller muscles for all analysed outcomes compared to normodivergent and hypodivergent patients while normodivergent patients had smaller muscles compared to hypodivergent patients. These results underpin a possible association between masticatory muscular characteristics and vertical craniofacial morphology; however, the magnitude of the differences was small and the certainty of the evidence very low.

Alternative approaches for assessing the functional capacity of masticatory muscles have been explored concerning vertical craniofacial morphology, yielding largely consistent findings. Studies have demonstrated a negative association between vertical facial dimensions and maximal bite force as well as electromyographic activity of masticatory muscles [49, 50]. Similarly, findings from computer tomography (CT) investigations align with these results, indicating a negative correlation between the mandibular plane angle and parameters such as masseter muscle thickness and length [51].

It has been previously reported that muscular anatomic characteristics are also reflected in the forces they are capable to exert with thicker muscles being able to deliver greater mechanical stresses on the underlying skeletal bone structures [52, 53]. Similarly, the masticatory muscles and their constraints exerted on facial bone structures considerably influence the face in general and mandibular shape [54, 55]. Additionally, it has been found that women with thinner muscles have longer faces while subjects with muscular dystrophies and subsequently weaker muscles attain a hyperdivergent growth pattern, which in turn indicates a relationship between aberrations in muscular characteristics and deviations in craniofacial morphology [20, 56].

The distribution of muscle fibres and their molecular structure also differs between vertical and horizontal growers. Studies have shown that the more hyperdivergent the patients, the more type I muscle fibres (slow fibres) are found, while in hypodivergent patients type II fibres (fast fibres) are more numerous [57, 58]. The correlation between sagittal jaw relationships and mean fibre area was found to be less evident; however, within Class III subjects, those with a deep bite exhibited a notable rise in type I and I/II hybrid fibres while polymorphism in the MYO1H gene was linked to an elevated susceptibility to mandibular prognathism and horizontal maxillomandibular discrepancies irrespective to the ethnic background [57, 59]. Associations between fibre-type distribution and biochemical composition of the masticatory muscles and how these can relate to skeletal craniofacial patterns however warrant further investigation.

Limitations of the evidence included in the review and the review process

Even though the present protocol was pre-registered, and an exhaustive literature search was performed, this systematic review also comes with some limitations relevant mainly to its results and the high risk of bias of the included studies. Issues related to bias are pertinent to study size (sample size), inconsistencies in the cut-off values of the cephalometric parameters used to categorize the patients into sagittal and/or vertical groups, unclear information on whether the assessor of the muscles was trained and blinded to the cephalometric variables and incomplete reporting of the samples and results.

Various cofounding factors were also not taken into consideration and accounted in the analyses in the included studies such as patients’ age and sex. Several studies included only males in their sample, naturally presenting larger muscle dimensions than those of women [24, 26, 41, 60]. Given that outcomes related to muscular characteristics differ between vertical groups, such subcategorization should be accounted for when grouping the patients per sagittal group. Additionally, age also varied greatly between the samples of different studies. Knowing that muscular bite force differences are not evident between hyperdivergent and normodivergent patients during childhood but only after adulthood, carrying out analyses without accounting for age can bias the results, however, such sub-group analyses were not possible due to incomplete reporting of study samples and results [13].

It could be advocated that differences in image acquisition could impart the accuracy of the measurements; however, the studies that contributed to the meta-analyses assessed muscular characteristics primarily by using ultrasonography. Moreover, studies show no significant differences between different methods such as Cone-Beam CT, MRI scans and ultrasonography for measuring and analysing muscle characteristics [61, 62].

When considering masticatory muscle size assessments, those made under relaxed conditions are known to be less reproducible due to the fact that the relaxed muscles are more susceptible to the pressure with which the transducer is positioned against the cheek, and thus is very technique sensitive [31, 63,64,65]. Measurements made under contracted conditions (with the patient biting) are thus preferred when assessing masticatory muscle thickness characteristics.

Finally, the overall high risk of bias of the included studies precludes us from drawing robust conclusions based on the current available evidence.

Implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research

These results highlight the importance of masticatory muscles in shaping the skeletal structures of the face. Even though in the past orthodontic treatment was basically focused on dental relationships, the current trends are more towards face-oriented orthodontic treatments [66]. Additionally, muscular anatomic characteristics have been reported to influence response to orthodontic treatment [67]. More specifically, the initial thickness of the masseter muscles in patients treated with functional appliances has been shown to influence treatment outcome. There was greater posterior displacement of the cephalometric point A in patients with thinner masseter muscles but also greater mandibular incisor proclination [68]. After undergoing functional appliance therapy, children exhibiting more pronounced dentoalveolar changes (thinner masseter muscles) may also demonstrate an increased likelihood of sagittal relapse post-treatment [69].

Although the current scientific evidence on the role of masticatory muscles on craniofacial patterns is weak, it could highlight an additional approach to patient care by incorporating factors related to muscular characteristics in baseline diagnosis. This approach considers the physiological aspects of a malocclusion, establishing the biological limits within which a practitioner can work. This applies to all treatment methods, whether conventional, combined with orthognathic surgery, using various appliances and biomechanics, or involving retention strategies for maintaining long-term stability.

With the present systematic review and meta-analysis, an attempt was made to gather the available evidence regarding the differences in anatomic masticatory muscle characteristics and craniofacial patterns as categorized in the sagittal or vertical dimensions using cephalometry. Given the uncertainty of the evidence though regarding the differences found in the present review, it is recommended that further high-quality prospective studies are conducted to expand the available evidence in this field.

Conclusions

Based on the studies included in our systematic review and meta-analysis, masseter muscle volume, cross-sectional area, width and thickness (under both relaxation and contraction) were significantly decreased in hyperdivergent patients compared to normodivergent and hypodivergent while the same parameters were significantly increased in hypodivergent patients compared to normodivergent patients. These results should be interpreted with caution because the scientific evidence from primary studies is weak with a high risk of bias.

References

  1. Carlson DS. Theories of craniofacial growth in the postgenomic era. Semin Orthod. 2005;11:172–83. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2005.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ. The behavior of adaptive bone-remodeling simulation models. J Biomech. 1992;25(12):1425–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(92)90056-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heller M, Duda G, Claes L. Femoral strain distribution under complex thigh muscle loading during gait. J Biomech. 1998;31:147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(98)80296-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brachetta-Aporta N, Toro-Ibacache V. Differences in masticatory loads impact facial bone surface remodeling in an archaeological sample of South American individuals. J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Spronsen PV, Weijs WA, Valk J, Prahl-Andersen B, Ginkel FV. Relationships between jaw muscle cross-sections and craniofacial morphology in normal adults, studied with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Orthod. 1991;13:351–61. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/13.5.351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kitai N, Fujii Y, Murakami S, Furukawa S, Kreiborg S, Takada K. Human masticatory muscle volume and zygomatico-mandibular form in adults with mandibular prognathism. J Dent Res. 2002;81:752–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0810752.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chan HJ, Woods M, Stella D. Mandibular muscle morphology in children with different vertical facial patterns: a 3-dimensional computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;133:10.e1-10.e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sassouni V. A classification of skeletal facial types. Am J Orthod. 1969;55:109–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(69)90122-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Takada K, Lowe AA, Freund VK. Canonical correlations between masticatory muscle orientation and dentoskeletal morphology in children. Am J Orthod. 1984;86:331–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90144-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Proctor AD, DeVincenzo JP. Masseter muscle position relative to dentofacial form. Angle Orthod. 1970;40:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(1970)040%3c0037:MMPRTD%3e2.0.CO;2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kiliaridis S. The importance of masticatory muscle function in dentofacial growth. Semin Orthod. 2006;12:110–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2006.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kiliaridis S, Engström C, Thilander B. The relationship between masticatory function and craniofacial morphology. I. A cephalometric longitudinal analysis in the growing rat fed a soft diet. Eur J Orthod. 1985;7:273–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/7.4.273.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Proffit WR, Fields HW. Occlusal forces in normal- and long-face children. J Dent Res. 1983;62:571–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345830620051301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Katsaros SKC. The effects of myotonic dystrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy on the orofacial muscles and dentofacial morphology. Acta Odontol Scand. 1998;56:369–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/000163598428347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dibbets JM. One century of Wolff’s law, in bone biodynamics in orthodontic ands orthopaedic treatment. Craniofac Growth Ser. 1992;27:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Enlow DH. Wolff’s law and the factor of architectonic circumstance. Am J Orthod. 1968;54:803–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(68)90001-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weijs WA, Hillen B. Relationships between masticatory muscle cross-section and skull shape. J Dent Res. 1984;63:1154–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345840630091201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Weijs WA, Hillen B. Correlations between the cross-sectional area of the jaw muscles and craniofacial size and shape. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1986;70:423–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330700403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hannam AG, Wood WW. Relationships between the size and spatial morphology of human masseter and medial pterygoid muscles, the craniofacial skeleton, and jaw biomechanics. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1989;80:429–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330800404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kiliaridis S, Kälebo P. Masseter muscle thickness measured by ultrasonography and its relation to facial morphology. J Dent Res. 1991;70:1262–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345910700090601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bakke M, Tuxetv 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. Eur J Oral Sci. 1992;100:164–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.1992.tb01734.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Raadsheer MC, Kiliaridis S, Van Eijden TMGJ, Van Ginkel FC, Prahl-Andersen B. Masseter muscle thickness in growing individuals and its relation to facial morphology. Arch Oral Biol. 1996;41:323–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(95)00136-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Benington P. Masseter muscle volume measured using ultrasonography and its relationship with facial morphology. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21:659–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.6.659.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Farella M, Bakke M, Michelotti A, Rapuano A, Martina R. Masseter thickness, endurance and exercise-induced pain in subjects with different vertical craniofacial morphology. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003;111:183–8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00035.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Şatıroğlu F, Arun T, Işık F. Comparative data on facial morphology and muscle thickness using ultrasonography. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:562–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kubota M. Maxillofacial morphology and masseter muscle thickness in adults. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:535–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.5.535.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rohila AK, Sharma VP, Shrivastav PK, Nagar A, Singh GP. An ultrasonographic evaluation of masseter muscle thickness in different dentofacial patterns. Indian J Dent Res. 2012;23:726–31. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.111247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tippett HL, Dodgson LK, Hunt NP, Lewis MP. Indices of extracellular matrix turnover in human masseter muscles as markers of craniofacial form–a preliminary study. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30:217–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Evirgen Åž. Review on the applications of ultrasonography in dentomaxillofacial region. World J Radiol. 2016;8:50. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v8.i1.50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Dupont A-C, Sauerbrei EE, Fenton PV, Shragge PC, Loeb GE, Richmond FJR. Real-time sonography to estimate muscle thickness: comparison with MRI and CT. J Clin Ultrasound. 2001;29:230–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.1025.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Raadsheer MC, van Eijden TMGJ, 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;39:1079–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(94)90061-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rani S, Ravi MS. Masseter muscle thickness in different skeletal morphology: an ultrasonographic study. Indian J Dent Res. 2010;21:402–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.70812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, The PRISMA, et al. statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2020;2021:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Downes MJ, Brennan ML, Williams HC, Dean RS. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011458. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, et al. Chapter 7: systematic reviews of etiology and risk. JBI Man Evid Synth JBI. 2020. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-08.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Papageorgiou SN. Meta-analysis for orthodontists: part I—how to choose effect measure and statistical model. J Orthod. 2014;41:317–26. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313314Y.0000000111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.4. 2023.https://training.cochrane.org/handbook.

  38. Ioannidis JPA, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2007;335:914–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:380–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tekucheva SV, Ermoljev SN, Zailer AS, Persin LS, Yanushevich OO, Postnikov MA. Ultrasound structural assessment of masseter muscles in subjects with different types of craniofacial growth. Stomatologiya. 2021;100:72. https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat202110003172.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Gregor C, Hietschold V, Harzer W. A 31P-magnet resonance spectroscopy study on the metabolism of human masseter in individuals with different vertical facial pattern. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;115:406–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2012.11.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Noviello A, Lione R, Da Ros V, Fanucci E, Cozza P. Analisi della correlazione tra dimensione facciale verticale e muscolo massetere in pazienti in crescita. Dent Cadmos. 2015;83:446–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-8524(15)30063-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lione R, Franchi L, Noviello A, Bollero P, Fanucci E, Cozza P. Three-dimensional evaluation of masseter muscle in different vertical facial patterns. Ultrason Imaging. 2013;35:307–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0161734613502468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ariji Y, Kawamata A, Yoshida K, Sakuma S, Nawa H, Fujishita M, et al. Three-dimensional morphology of the masseter muscle in patients with mandibular prognathism. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000;29:113–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600515.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Becht MP, Mah J, Martin C, Razmus T, Gunel E, Ngan P. Evaluation of masseter muscle morphology in different types of malocclusions using cone beam computed tomography. Int Orthod. 2014;12:32–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2013.12.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kim T-H, Kim C-H. Correlation between mandibular morphology and masticatory muscle thickness in normal occlusion and mandibular prognathism. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;46:313–20. https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.5.313.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim H, Shin D, Kang J, Kim S, Lim H, Lee J, et al. Anatomical characteristics of the lateral pterygoid muscle in mandibular prognathism. Appl Sci. 2021;11:7970. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11177970.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Zepa K, Urtane I, Krisjane Z, Krumina G. Three-dimensional evaluation of musculoskeletal in class II and class III patients. Stomatologija. 2009;11:15–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Custodio W, Gomes SGF, Faot F, Garcia RCMR, Del Bel Cury AA. Occlusal force, electromyographic activity of masticatory muscles and mandibular flexure of subjects with different facial types. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011;19:343–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572011005000008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Takeuchi-Sato T, Arima T, Mew M, Svensson P. Relationships between craniofacial morphology and masticatory muscle activity during isometric contraction at different interocclusal distances. Arch Oral Biol. 2019;98:52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.10.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Azaroual MF, Fikri M, Abouqal R, Benyahya H, Zaoui F. Relation entre dimensions des muscles masticateurs (masséter et ptérygoïdien latéral) et dimensions squelettiques: étude sur 40 cas. Int Orthod. 2014;12:111–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2013.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ikai M, Fukunaga T. Calculation of muscle strength per unit cross-sectional area of human muscle by means of ultrasonic measurement. Int Z Für Angewandte Physiol Einschl Arbeitsphysiol. 1968;26:26–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00696087.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Maughan RJ, Watson JS, Weir J. Strength and cross-sectional area of human skeletal muscle. J Physiol. 1983;338:37–49. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1983.sp014658.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Kiliaridis S, Kjellberg H, Wenneberg B, Engström C. The relationship between maximal bite force, bite force endurance, and facial morphology during growth: a cross-sectional study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1993;51:323–31. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359309040583.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sella-Tunis T, Pokhojaev A, Sarig R, O’Higgins P, May H. Human mandibular shape is associated with masticatory muscle force. Sci Rep. 2018;8:6042. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24293-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Kiliaridis S, Mejersjö C, Thilander B. Muscle function and craniofacial morphology: a clinical study in patients with myotonic dystrophy. Eur J Orthod. 1989;11:131–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035975.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Rowlerson A, Raoul G, Daniel Y, Close J, Maurage C-A, Ferri J, et al. Fiber-type differences in masseter muscle associated with different facial morphologies. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005;127:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sciote JJ, Horton MJ, Rowlerson AM, Ferri J, Close JM, Raoul G. Human masseter muscle fiber type properties, skeletal malocclusions, and muscle growth factor expression. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:440–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2011.04.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Cruz CV, Mattos CT, Maia JC, Granjeiro JM, Reis MF, Mucha JN, et al. Genetic polymorphisms underlying the skeletal Class III phenotype. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;151:700–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 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;71:1279–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345920710060301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Reis Durão AP, Morosolli A, Brown J, Jacobs R. Masseter muscle measurement performed by ultrasound: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2017;46:20170052. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20170052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pan Y, Wang Y, Li G, Chen S, Xu T. Validity and reliability of masseter muscles segmentation from the transverse sections of cone-beam CT scans compared with MRI scans. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2022;17:751–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-021-02513-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Emshoff R, Bertram S, Brandlmaier I, Scheiderbauer G, Rudisch A, Bodner G. Ultrasonographic assessment of local cross-sectional dimensions of masseter muscle sites: A reproducible technique? J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:1059–62. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00939.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Bertram S, Bodner G, Rudisch A, Brandlmaier I, Emshoff R. Effect of scanning level and muscle condition on ultrasonographic cross-sectional measurements of the anterior masseter muscle. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:430–5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01052.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Bertram S, Brandlmaier I, Rudisch A, Bodner G, Emshoff R. Cross-sectional characteristics of the masseter muscle: an ultrasonographic study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;32:64–8. https://doi.org/10.1054/ijom.2002.0259.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sarvera DM, Ackermanb JL. Orthodontics about face: the re-emergence of the esthetic paradigm. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;117:575–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70204-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kiliaridis S, Mills C, Antonarakis G. Masseter muscle thickness as a predictive variable in treatment outcome of the twin-block appliance and masseteric thickness changes during treatment. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2010;13:203–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01496.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S. Predictive value of masseter muscle thickness and bite force on class II functional appliance treatment: a prospective controlled study. Eur J Orthod. 2015;37:570–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju089.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S. The effects of class II functional appliance treatment are influenced by the masticatory muscle functional capacity. Iran J Orthod. 2018. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijo.67036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr Christophe Combescure, Service d'épidémiologie Clinique, Centre de recherche Clinique, University of Geneva for the assistance with the meta-analyses.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Geneva.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Orthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    David Togninalli, Gregory S. Antonarakis & Alexandra K. Papadopoulou

  2. Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Sydney Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Alexandra K. Papadopoulou

Authors
  1. David Togninalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gregory S. Antonarakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexandra K. Papadopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra K. Papadopoulou.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Togninalli, D., Antonarakis, G.S. & Papadopoulou, A.K. Relationship between craniofacial skeletal patterns and anatomic characteristics of masticatory muscles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Orthod. 25, 36 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-024-00534-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-024-00534-2

Keywords