| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH REPORT |
1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dental Science, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan;
2 Faculty of Dental Science, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan;
3 Asahi Kasei Information Systems Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan;
4 Department of Functional Anatomy, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Universiteit van Amsterdam, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands;
5 Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan; and
6 Department of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
* corresponding author, goto{at}rad.dent.kyushu-u.ac.jp
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
KEY WORDS: human masticatory muscles • muscle cross-sectional area • muscle orientation • magnetic resonance imaging • mandibular laterognathism
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The orientation of jaw muscles has been studied in subjects with normal craniofacial form, in comparison with long- and short-face subjects. Jaw muscle orientation seems to be related to variations in facial height and mandibular shape (gonial angle) (van Spronsen et al., 1997). The jaw muscles in long-face subjects have been reported to be more obliquely oriented compared with those in normal or short-face subjects (Takada et al., 1984; Haskell et al., 1986); however, another study found no differences (van Spronsen et al., 1996).
In the case of facial asymmetry, there are several studies on muscle size in hemifacial microsomia, a congenital craniofacial malformation. A recent publication (Huisinga-Fischer et al., 2001) showed that, in hemifacial microsomia, the jaw muscles of the non-affected side were less developed than those of controls. In addition, a comparison of both muscle sides within patients showed that muscles were significantly smaller on the affected than on the unaffected side (Kahl-Nieke and Fischbach, 1998; Takashima et al., 2003; Huisinga-Fischer et al., 2004). It seems that the degree of hypoplasia of the masticatory muscles in these patients increases with the degree of mandibular dysmorphology (Marsh et al., 1989; Kane et al., 1997). Subjects with mandibular laterognathism (Maki et al., 2001), a non-congenital craniofacial asymmetry, showed bilateral differences in the size of the masseter muscle. These differences in size can be the result of a simple relocation of the mandible, or caused by a change in the jaw system, generating, for instance, asymmetry in all jaw muscles. In the first case, one would expect the size of the jaw muscles to be basically the same in patients and controls. In the latter case, the jaw muscles will show clear size differences, which could affect one muscle more than another.
So far, the relationship between the size and the orientation of the jaw muscles and mandibular laterognathism remains unclear. Also, it is unresolved how muscle size and orientation in patients relate to normal subjects. Using a previously published method of muscle size determination (Goto et al., 2005a), we examined the jaw muscles in patients with mandibular laterognathism and compared them with those in controls.
The purposes of this study were to investigate the differences in size measurements (cross-sectional area, length, and volume) and orientation of the masticatory muscles between deviated and non-deviated sides of the jaw in patients with mandibular laterognathism, and to compare these parameters with values obtained in controls. It was hypothesized that the jaw muscles of the deviated side would be smaller and oriented differently from those of the non-deviated side, and that the muscle sizes would be smaller than those in controls.
|
MATERIALS & METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Data Acquisition
The muscles were evaluated by MRI (1.5 Tesla; voxel size 0.9 x 0.9 x 1.25 mm; Magnetom Vision, Siemens AG, Erlangen, Germany). The participants held their teeth loosely together in the intercuspal position. During imaging, the participants were monitored by a camera as a control for their mandibular posture. The contours of the muscles were traced on the frontal images and were then reconstructed, resulting in a three-dimensional dataset of the participant’s entire head, showing the individual jaw muscles (NIH Image 1.62; US NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA). The reconstruction allowed for the visualization of the images in any desired plane (Dr. View/Linux, AJS, Tokyo, Japan). Cross-sectional areas were measured at an angle perpendicular to the actual muscle’s long axis. For a detailed description of the method, see Goto et al.(2005a). In brief, to define the long axis in the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles, we measured the frontal angle of the muscle relative to the Frankfort horizontal plane. We then used reconstructed images parallel to this angle and perpendicular to the frontal plane to obtain a ’lateral view’ of these muscles to determine the long axis. Subsequently, a series of cross-sectional areas was determined at 1-mm intervals perpendicular to the long axis. For the lateral pterygoid muscle, we used axial scans to determine the muscle’s axial angle. Reconstructed images parallel to this angle and perpendicular to the axial plane were then used to estimate the muscle’s long axis. Cross-sectional areas were determined at 1-mm intervals perpendicular to this muscle’s long axis.
We used the number of sections along the muscle’s long axis to estimate the length of the muscle. We used the number of voxels within the reconstructed muscles to calculate the muscle volume.
The orientation of each of the muscle’s long axes was described by 2 angles. For the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles, the frontal and sagittal angles between the muscle’s long axis and the Frankfort horizontal plane were used. For the lateral pterygoid muscle, the axial and sagittal angles were used (Fig. 1
).
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
, left panels). However, the sizes of the jaw muscles were clearly smaller in patients than in the controls. In patients, the masseter showed smaller maximum cross-sectional areas (3.9 and 4.0 cm2 for deviated and non-deviated sides, respectively), compared with the control group (5.3 cm2), and much smaller volumes, in particular (16.9 and 18.2 cm3 for deviated and non-deviated sides, respectively) than in the controls (29.8 cm3). A similar but less extreme result was found for the medial pterygoid, whereas the lateral pterygoid muscle showed only a smaller volume. The length of the muscles showed no difference between the patient and control groups.
|
. In patients, the relative position of the maximum cross-sectional area showed no significant difference between the deviated and non-deviated sides, nor was there a significant difference between sides in the patients and the controls. However, the coefficients of variation of the relative positions of the maximum cross-sectional areas showed a larger inter-individual variation for the masseter (28.8 and 29.9% for deviated and non-deviated sides, respectively) and medial pterygoid muscles (12.5 and 9.2%) in patients than in controls (19.3 and 7.1%) (Fig. 3).
|
, 2). Compared with controls, the masseter muscle showed a more vertical frontal angle on the deviated side (p < 0.01), and a more vertical sagittal angle on the non-deviated side (p < 0.05). The medial pterygoid muscle showed a less vertical frontal angle on the deviated side compared with that in controls, while the sagittal angle for the non-deviated side showed a more vertical orientation. Both sides of the lateral pterygoid showed a more medially directed axial angle compared with those in controls. |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Differences between deviated and non-deviated sides were found only for the masseter, which was slightly shorter and smaller in volume on the deviated side. There was no significant difference in maximum cross-sectional area between the muscles on the deviated and non-deviated sides. The only study on muscle cross-sectional areas in post-natally acquired asymmetrical mandibles (Maki et al., 2001) showed a clear difference in masseter cross-sectional area, contrary to our results. Possible reasons for this discrepancy could be the difference in the participants’ ages. More importantly, the cross-sectional area in their study was measured with one axial cross-section through the middle of the muscle, parallel to the Frankfort horizontal plane. Such a cross-sectional area measurement does not take into account individual variations in facial shape. Thus, the cross-sectional areas are largely influenced by variations in muscle orientation relative to these artificial planes. The present study shows that there are indeed large left-right orientation differences in the masseter muscle.
When patient muscles on both sides were compared, the orientations of the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles were found to be different. These orientation differences can be explained by the laterodeviation of the mandible. In a frontal view, such a lateral position would cause the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles, on the deviated side, to orient more and less vertically, respectively.
In patients, the cross-sectional area and volume of the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles were clearly smaller than in controls, while the lateral pterygoid muscle showed no cross-sectional area difference. Similarly, the orientation of the masseter and medial pterygoid was clearly affected by the mandibular laterognathism—an effect less present for the lateral pterygoid.
The large decreases in muscle sizes described in this study cannot be attributed to the displacement of the mandible alone. Apparently, lateral displacement of the mandible initiates an adaptive process in the entire jaw system, resulting in extensive atrophy of the jaw muscles compared with the normal situation. Smaller jaw-closers were also found in long-face adults (van Spronsen et al., 1992; Ariji et al., 2000). The cross-sectional areas of masseter and medial pterygoid muscles showed a good correlation with bite force (Sasaki et al., 1989; van Spronsen et al., 1989; Raadsheer et al., 1999); therefore, it can be assumed that the smaller cross-sectional areas found in our study are correlated to a weaker bite force. However, it remains unresolved whether this decreased muscle function causes the craniofacial malformation (Kiliaridis, 1995), or vice versa. Although jaw muscle size has been correlated to facial morphology (Weijs and Hillen, 1984, 1986), other functional and epigenetic factors may play an important role (Herring, 1993). Animal studies have shown the association between an experimentally altered oral function and craniofacial development (Hohl, 1983; Nakano et al., 2004). Intriguingly, after full development of the asymmetrical mandible in humans, the asymmetrical distribution of bone mineralization found during development decreases. This finding may suggest that the craniomandibular muscles develop a new equilibrium within the asymmetrical skeleton (Maki et al., 2001).
Interestingly, the lateral pterygoid muscle, which showed the least difference in size and orientation, due to mandibular laterognathism, has no correlation with facial dimensions in normal subjects (Weijs and Hillen, 1984). It is known that the development of the sphenoid bone (origin of the lateral pterygoid muscle) and face width are completed earlier, and that, in adolescence, their growth rate is lower than that of the mandible (Waitzman et al., 1992; Sgouros et al., 1999). Therefore, the lateral pterygoid muscle could be less influenced by asymmetrical morphological change of the mandible in adolescence.
The general shape of muscles was constant among the controls, and that of deviated and non-deviated sides in patients. Nevertheless, it is clear that the variations are larger in patients than in controls, especially for masseter and medial pterygoid muscles, as illustrated by the wider scatter of points in Fig. 3. This suggests that, in patients, the variation of muscle shape may be larger than in controls (Ingervall and Helkimo, 1978). The variation can also be caused by the complex muscle outlines in the patient group (Takashima et al., 2003).
In conclusion, our results showed that (1) in patients, only the masseter showed a smaller muscle size (length and volume) on the deviated compared with the non-deviated side, (2) muscle size (cross-sectional area and volume) in patients was smaller than in controls, and (3) inter-individual variations of muscle shape were larger in patients than in controls. Our standardized method, which takes muscle orientation into account, is useful in comparing cross-sectional areas for different skull morphologies.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
Received June 16, 2005; Last revision January 3, 2006; Accepted March 1, 2006
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS & METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Goto TK, Tokumori K, Nakamura Y, Yahagi M, Yuasa K, Okamura K, et al. (2002). Volume changes in human masticatory muscles between jaw closing and opening. J Dent Res 81:428–432.
Goto TK, Yahagi M, Nakamura Y, Tokumori K, Langenbach GE, Yoshiura K (2005a). In vivo cross-sectional area of human jaw muscles varies with section location and jaw position. J Dent Res 84:570–575.
Goto TK, Nishida S, Nakayama E, Nakamura Y, Sakai S, Yabuuchi H, et al. (2005b). Correlation of mandibular deviation with temporomandibular joint MR dimensions, MR disk position, and clinical symptoms. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 100:743–749.[ISI][Medline]
Haskell B, Day M, Tetz J (1986). Computer-aided modeling in the assessment of the biomechanical determinants of diverse skeletal patterns. Am J Orthod 89:363–382.[ISI][Medline]
Herring SW (1993). Epigenetic and functional influences on skull growth. In: The skull. Vol. 1. Development. Hanken J, Hall BK, editors. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 153–206.
Hohl TH (1983). Masticatory muscle transposition in primates: effects on craniofacial growth. J Maxillofac Surg 11:149–156.[ISI][Medline]
Huisinga-Fischer CE, Zonneveld FW, Vaandrager JM, Prahl-Andersen B (2001). Relationship in hypoplasia between the masticatory muscles and the craniofacial skeleton in hemifacial microsomia, as determined by 3-D CT imaging. J Craniofac Surg 12:31–40.[ISI][Medline]
Huisinga-Fischer CE, Vaandrager JM, Prahl-Andersen B, van Ginkel FC (2004). Masticatory muscle right-left differences in controls and hemifacial microsomia patients. J Craniofac Surg 15:42–46.[ISI][Medline]
Ingervall B, Helkimo E (1978). Masticatory muscle force and facial morphology in man. Arch Oral Biol 23:203–206.[ISI][Medline]
Kahl-Nieke B, Fischbach R (1998). Effect of early orthopedic intervention on hemifacial microsomia patients: an approach to a cooperative evaluation of treatment results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114:538–550.[ISI][Medline]
Kane AA, Lo LJ, Christensen GE, Vannier MW, Marsh JL (1997). Relationship between bone and muscles of mastication in hemifacial microsomia. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:990–997.[ISI][Medline]
Kiliaridis S (1995). Masticatory muscle influence on craniofacial growth. Acta Odontol Scand 53:196–202.[ISI][Medline]
Kiliaridis S, Kälebo P (1991). Masseter muscle thickness measured by ultrasonography and its relation to facial morphology. J Dent Res 70:1262–1265.
Kitai N, Fujii Y, Murakami S, Furukawa S, Kreiborg S, Takada K (2002). Human masticatory muscle volume and zygomatico-mandibular form in adults with mandibular prognathism. J Dent Res 81:752–756.
Maki K, Miller AJ, Okano T, Hatcher D, Yamaguchi T, Kobayashi H, et al. (2001). Cortical bone mineral density in asymmetrical mandibles: a three-dimensional quantitative computed tomography study. Eur J Orthod 23:217–232.
Marsh JL, Baca D, Vannier MW (1989). Facial musculoskeletal asymmetry in hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate J 26:292–302.[ISI][Medline]
Nakano H, Maki K, Shibasaki Y, Miller AJ (2004). Three-dimensional changes in the condyle during development of an asymmetrical mandible in a rat: a microcomputed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:410–420.[ISI][Medline]
Raadsheer MC, van Eijden TM, van Ginkel FC, Prahl-Andersen B (1999). Contribution of jaw muscle size and craniofacial morphology to human bite force magnitude. J Dent Res 78:31–42.
Sasaki K, Hannam AG, Wood WW (1989). Relationships between the size, position, and angulation of human jaw muscles and unilateral first molar bite force. J Dent Res 68:499–503.
Sgouros S, Natarajan K, Hockley AD, Goldin JH, Wake M (1999). Skull base growth in childhood. Pediatr Neurosurg 31:259–268.[ISI][Medline]
Takada K, Lowe AA, Freund VK (1984). Canonical correlations between masticatory muscle orientation and dentoskeletal morphology in children. Am J Orthod 86:331–341.[ISI][Medline]
Takashima M, Kitai N, Murakami S, Furukawa S, Kreiborg S, Takada K (2003). Volume and shape of masticatory muscles in patients with hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 40:6–12.[ISI][Medline]
van Spronsen PH, Weijs WA, Valk J, Prahl-Andersen B, van Ginkel FC (1989). Comparison of jaw-muscle bite-force cross-sections obtained by means of magnetic resonance imaging and high-resolution CT scanning. J Dent Res 68:1765–1770.
van Spronsen PH, Weijs WA, Valk J, Prahl-Andersen B, van Ginkel FC (1992). A comparison of jaw muscle cross-sections of long-face and normal adults. J Dent Res 71:1279–1285.
van Spronsen PH, Weijs WA, van Ginkel FC, Prahl-Andersen B (1996). Jaw muscle orientation and moment arms of long-face and normal adults. J Dent Res 75:1372–1380.
van Spronsen PH, Koolstra JH, van Ginkel FC, Weijs WA, Valk J, Prahl-Andersen B (1997). Relationships between the orientation and moment arms of the human jaw muscles and normal craniofacial morphology. Eur J Orthod 19:313–328.
Waitzman AA, Posnick JC, Armstrong DC, Pron GE (1992). Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: Part II. Normal values and growth trends. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 29:118–128.[ISI][Medline]
Weijs WA, Hillen B (1984). Relationships between masticatory muscle cross-section and skull shape. J Dent Res 63:1154–1157.
Weijs WA, Hillen B (1986). Correlations between the cross-sectional area of the jaw muscles and craniofacial size and shape. Am J Phys Anthropol 70:423–431.[ISI][Medline]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| IADR Journals | Advances in Dental Research ® |
| Journal of Dental Research ® | Critical Reviews (1990-2004) |
p < 0.01 by paired t test with Bonferroni. Significant differences between each side in patients and controls were seen. A marked difference in muscle volume is evident. Abbreviations: CSA, maximum cross-sectional area (cm2); Length, muscle length (mm); Volume, muscle volume (cm3); Angle, orientation (°).