Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences

Ultrasound Findings of the Masseter Muscle in Patients with Bruxism

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mahrokh Imanimoghaddam 1
Azam Sadat Madani 2
Parvaneh Armanpoor 3
Ali Bagherpour 4
Faeze Zomorrodian 5

1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Oral and Maxillofacial Disease Research Center, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 Student Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

4 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

5 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran

https://doi.org/10.34172/jkmu.3449
Abstract
Background: Bruxism is a common parafunctional activity that causes destructive effects on the teeth, periodontal tissue, and temporomandibular joint, leading to hypertrophy and myositis of the masseter muscle. This study aimed to evaluate the sonography findings of masseter muscle among women with bruxism and compare them with those among healthy females.
Methods: The statistical population of this study consisted of 45 female volunteers, including 23 patients with bruxism and 22 healthy subjects, referring to the Prosthodontics Department. Masseter muscles were evaluated by sonography in each group bilaterally, at rest and maximum contraction positions, and in longitudinal and transverse planes in terms of thickness. It was also examined in terms of the pattern (type I, II, and III), echogenicity (hypo, intermediate, and hyper), internal structure (homogeneous and heterogeneous), and muscle fiber limits (well-defined, poorly-defined, and ill-defined).
Results: In the study of three variables of echogenicity, internal structure, and boundaries of muscle in patients with bruxism, less echogenicity (P ≤ 0.011), heterogeneous structure (P ≤ 0.003), and indeterminate boundaries (P = 0.000) were predominant, and there was a significant relationship between the two groups. Moreover, the examination of the difference in muscle thickness between the two groups showed that only the thickness of the left masseter muscle in the longitudinal plane and at rest position was significant between the healthy and bruxism groups (P = 0.040).
Conclusion: There were marked sonographic changes in the masseter muscle in women with bruxism, indicating that the bruxism may affect the masseter muscle.

Highlights

Faeze Zomorrodian (Google Scholar) (PubMed)

Keywords

Masseter muscle
Ultrasonography
Bruxism
  1. Najm AA. Sonographic evaluation of masseter muscle thickness in bruxist and non-bruxist subjects. J Baghdad Coll Dent. 2014;26(3):49-52. doi: 10.12816/0015224.
  2. Aslan EM, Artaş A. Ultrasonographic assessment of masseter and anterior temporal muscle thickness and internal structure in young adult patients with bruxism. J Clin Ultrasound. 2025;53(2):286-93. doi: 10.1002/jcu.23866.
  3. Okeson JP. Management of Temporomandibular Disorders and Occlusion-E-book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2019.
  4. Lee YH, Chun YH, Bae H, Lee JW, Kim HJ. Comparison of ultrasonography-based masticatory muscle thickness between temporomandibular disorders bruxers and temporomandibular disorders non-bruxers. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):6923. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-57696-6.
  5. Imanimoghaddam M, Davachi B, Madani AS, Nemati S. Ultrasonographic findings of masseter muscle in females with temporomandibular disorders. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(2):e108-12. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182646af0.
  6. Kilinc HE, Onan D, Ulger O. Investigation of masticatory muscle thickness and mechanosensitivity of cervical and masticatory muscles in myofascial temporomandibular disorder patients with bruxism: a cross-sectional study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2024;70:102919. doi: 10.1016/j. msksp.2024.102919.
  7. De Nordenflycht D, Figueroa K, Muñoz J, De la Torre Canales G. Ultrasonographic characteristics of myogenous temporomandibular disorders: a scoping review. J Oral Rehabil. 2024;51(10):2209-19. doi: 10.1111/joor.13801.
  8. Ariji Y, Sakuma S, Izumi M, Sasaki J, Kurita K, Ogi N, et al. Ultrasonographic features of the masseter muscle in female patients with temporomandibular disorder associated with myofascial pain. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;98(3):337-41. doi: 10.1016/j. tripleo.2004.06.068.
  9. Pires PF, Rodrigues-Bigaton D. Evaluation of integral electromyographic values and median power frequency values in women with myogenous temporomandibular disorder and asymptomatic controls. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2018;22(3):720-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.09.001.
  10. Dupont AC, Sauerbrei EE, Fenton PV, Shragge PC, Loeb GE, Richmond FJ. Real-time sonography to estimate muscle thickness: comparison with MRI and CT. J Clin Ultrasound. 2001;29(4):230-6. doi: 10.1002/jcu.1025.
  11. Ariji E, Ariji Y, Yoshiura K, Kimura S, Horinouchi Y, Kanda S. Ultrasonographic evaluation of inflammatory changes in the masseter muscle. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994;78(6):797-801. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(94)90098-1.
  12. Georgiakaki I, Tortopidis D, Garefis P, Kiliaridis S. Ultrasonographic thickness and electromyographic activity of masseter muscle of human females. J Oral Rehabil. 2007;34(2):121-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01677.x.

  13. 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;39(12):1079-84. doi: 10.1016/0003-9969(94)90061-2.

  14. Raghunandan Iyengar A, Patil S, Guddannanavar Karibasappa G, Beloor Vasudev S, Kumar Joshi R. Evaluation of internal echogenic pattern of masseter in subjects with myofascial pain/ myositis, oral submucous fibrosis, chewers, bruxers and healthy individuals- a preliminary ultrasonographic study. J Dent (Shiraz). 2016;17(4):361-6.

  15. Satiroğlu F, Arun T, Işik F. Comparative data on facial morphology and muscle thickness using ultrasonography. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(6):562-7. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cji052.
  16. Yamaguchi K, Hara K, Nakagawa K, Namiki C, Ariya C, Yoshimi K, et al. Association of aging and tooth loss with masseter muscle characteristics: an ultrasonographic study. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(11):3881-8. doi: 10.1007/s00784- 020-03255-y.
  17. Kiliaridis S, Georgiakaki I, Katsaros C. Masseter muscle thickness and maxillary dental arch width. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25(3):259-63. doi: 10.1093/ejo/25.3.259.
  18. Chang PH, Chen YJ, Chang KV, Wu WT, Özçakar L. Ultrasound measurements of superficial and deep masticatory muscles in various postures: reliability and influencers. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):14357. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71378-z.
  19. Park KM, Choi E, Kwak EJ, Kim S, Park W, Jeong JS, et al. The relationship between masseter muscle thickness measured by ultrasonography and facial profile in young Korean adults. Imaging Sci Dent. 2018;48(3):213-21. doi: 10.5624/ isd.2018.48.3.213.
  20. Odkhuu M, Kim J, Kim SJ. An ultrasonographic evaluation of masseter muscle thickness in patients having parafunctional habit. J Korean Dent Sci. 2020;13(2):59-66. doi: 10.5856/ jkds.2020.13.2.59.
  21. Yamaguchi K, Tohara H, Hara K, Nakane A, Yoshimi K, Nakagawa K, et al. Factors associated with masseter muscle quality assessed from ultrasonography in community-dwelling elderly individuals: a cross-sectional study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019;82:128-32. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2019.02.003.
  22. Barotsis N, Tsiganos P, Kokkalis Z, Panayiotakis G, Panagiotopoulos E. Reliability of muscle thickness measurements in ultrasonography. Int J Rehabil Res. 2020;43(2):123-8. doi: 10.1097/mrr.0000000000000390.
  23. 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(4):430-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01052.x.
  24. 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(11):1059- 62. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00939.x.
Journal of Kerman University of Medical Sciences
Volume 32
Pages 1-7

Home

Editorial Board

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Reviewers

Contact Us