A comparison of human masseter muscle thickness measured by ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Non-invasive imaging techniques such as computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasonography enable measurements of the cross-section and thickness of human jaw muscles in vivo, providing an indication of the maximal force a muscle can exert. In 15 adult Caucasian men the thickness of the masseter muscle was registered bilaterally on three different levels by ultrasonography. Scans were made on the contracted and relaxed muscle. A comparison was then made with measurements from serial MRI scans, using univariate analysis of variance for repeated measurements and Pearson's correlation coefficients. Variances of the repeated measurements were calculated for the different scanning levels and the different muscle conditions and tested for homogeneity. For both the ultrasound and MRI measurements there was no difference in thickness between the left and right muscle. The registration level with highest reproducibility was halfway between the origin and insertion. Measurements from the contracted muscle were more reproducible than those from the relaxed muscle. The relaxed muscle thickness measured by ultrasonography was smaller than that measured by MRI. The correlation between ultrasound and MRI was significant for the upper and middle level of scanning (p < 0.001). The highest correlation was found between MRI (relaxed) and ultrasound (contracted) at the middle level (R = 0.83, p < 10(-6)). The conclusion is that ultrasonography is an accurate and reproducible method for measuring the thickness of the masseter in vivo. It allows for large-scale longitudinal study of changes in jaw-muscle thickness during growth in relation to change in biomechanical properties of masticatory muscles.

[1]  F C van Ginkel,et al.  Comparison of Jaw-muscle Bite-force Cross-sections Obtained by Means of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and High-resolution CT Scanning , 1989, Journal of dental research.

[2]  A. Brodie Anatomy and physiology of head and neck musculature. , 1950, American journal of orthodontics.

[3]  S. Kiliaridis,et al.  Masseter Muscle Thickness Measured by Ultrasonography and its Relation to Facial Morphology , 1991, Journal of dental research.

[4]  B. Prahl-Andersen,et al.  A Comparison of Jaw Muscle Cross-sections of Long-face and Normal Adults , 1992, Journal of dental research.

[5]  B. Ingervall,et al.  A pilot study of the effect of masticatory muscle training on facial growth in long-face children. , 1987, European journal of orthodontics.

[6]  S. Kiliaridis,et al.  Muscle function and craniofacial morphology: a clinical study in patients with myotonic dystrophy. , 1989, European journal of orthodontics.

[7]  S. Kreiborg,et al.  Craniofacial growth in a case of congenital muscular dystrophy. , 1978, American journal of orthodontics.

[8]  B. Hillen,et al.  Relationship between the physiological cross-section of the human jaw muscles and their cross-sectional area in computer tomograms. , 1984, Acta anatomica.

[9]  B. Prahl-Andersen,et al.  Relationships between jaw muscle cross-sections and craniofacial morphology in normal adults, studied with magnetic resonance imaging. , 1991, European journal of orthodontics.

[10]  M Bakke,et al.  Ultrasound image of human masseter muscle related to bite force, electromyography, facial morphology, and occlusal factors. , 1992, Scandinavian journal of dental research.

[11]  S. Kreiborg,et al.  Soft-tissue stretching: a possible control factor in craniofacial morphogenesis. , 1977, Scandinavian journal of dental research.

[12]  B. Hillen,et al.  Relationships between Masticatory Muscle Cross-section and Skull Shape , 1984, Journal of dental research.

[13]  A. Hannam,et al.  Relationships between the size and spatial morphology of human masseter and medial pterygoid muscles, the craniofacial skeleton, and jaw biomechanics. , 1989, American journal of physical anthropology.