RESEARCH ARTICLE
Assessment of Masseter Muscle Appearance and Thickness in Edentulous and Dentate Patients by Ultrasonography
Meltem Mayil, Gaye Keser, Arzu Demir, Filiz Namdar Pekiner*
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2018Volume: 12
First Page: 723
Last Page: 734
Publisher ID: TODENTJ-12-723
DOI: 10.2174/1745017901814010723
Article History:
Received Date: 30/4/2018Revision Received Date: 18/7/2018
Acceptance Date: 3/9/2018
Electronic publication date: 28/09/2018
Collection year: 2018
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Objectives:
The purpose of the present study was to examine ultrasonographic appearances of Masseter Muscle (MM) in dentate and edentulous patients without Temporomandibular Disorder (TMD).
Materials and Methods:
The thickness of the MM in 25 dentate (mean age: 30,68 ± 10,49) and 24 edentulous (mean age: 61,46 ± 9,71) patients, who visited routine dental examination, was measured at rest and at maximum contraction bilaterally. Examinations were performed using an Aloka Prosound α6 (Hitachi Aloka Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with an 8 MHz-wide bandwidth linear active matrix transducer (ranging from 1 to 15 MHz). The visibility and width of the internal echogenic bands of the MM were also assessed and the muscle appearance was classified as I of III types. Type I, characterized by the clear visibility of the fine bands; Type II, thickening echogenicity of the bands; Type III, disappearance or reduction in a number of the bands.
Results:
MM thickness at rest and contraction in the dentate group were significantly higher than the edentulous group (p <0.05). Type I was the most common echogenic type in both dentate (right:16 (64%), left; 15 (60%)) and edentulous patients (right; 22 (91.7%), left; 18 (75%)). In a dentate group, type II was significantly higher than the edentulous group in both the right and left sides (p <0.05; p <0.01, respectively). Age and gender seemed to have no significant effect on the echogenic type (p ˃0.05).
Conclusion:
There were significant differences in the thickness at rest and contraction between the dentate and edentulous groups. It was clarified that ultrasonographic features of the MM in dentate and edentulous patients were different.
