
==== Front
Prog Orthod
Prog Orthod
Progress in Orthodontics
1723-7785
2196-1042
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

39245691
534
10.1186/s40510-024-00534-2
Review
Relationship between craniofacial skeletal patterns and anatomic characteristics of masticatory muscles: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Togninalli David 1
Antonarakis Gregory S. 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-0479
Papadopoulou Alexandra K. Alexandra.Papadopoulou@unige.ch

12
1 https://ror.org/01swzsf04 grid.8591.5 0000 0001 2175 2154 Division of Orthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
2 https://ror.org/0384j8v12 grid.1013.3 0000 0004 1936 834X Discipline of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Sydney Dental School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
9 9 2024
9 9 2024
2024
25 369 4 2024
10 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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/.
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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40510-024-00534-2.

Keywords

Masticatory muscles
Masseter
Craniofacial pattern
Skeletal pattern
Systematic review
Meta-analysis
University of GenevaOpen access funding provided by University of Geneva

issue-copyright-statement© Italian Society of Orthodontics 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

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 [2–4]. 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 [17–27].

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, 29–32].

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 PRISMA flowchart diagram

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

Outcomes	Norm	Hypo	Hyper	
N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	
Masseter CSA (mm2)	6; 115 [4–35]	3.8 (3.1–4.5); I2 = 0.95	4; 62 [10–22]	4.1 (3.2–5.1); I2 = 0.98	6; 75 [5–25]	3.3 (2.8–3.8); I2 = 0.92	
Lateral pterygoid CSA (mm2)	1; 35 [35–35]	4.2 (4.0–4.4)	0; 0		1; 13 [13–13]	3.7 (3.4–4.0)	
Medial pterygoid CSA (mm2)	3; 79 [11–35]	2.9 (2.6–3.2); I2 = 0.85	2; 30 [11–19]	2.9 (2.6–3.2); I2 = 0.57	3; 46 [8–25]	2.5 (2.2–2.9); I2 = 0.77	
Temporalis CSA (mm2)	1; 35 [35–35]	5.1 (4.9–5.4)	0; 0		1; 13 [13–13]	4.4 (4.1–4.8)	
Masseter CSA_bite (mm2)	1; 10 [10–10]	3.3 (2.7–3.9)	1; 10 [10–10]	4.1 (3.8–4.4)	1; 10 [10–10]	3.1 (2.7–3.5)	
N number of studies reporting the outcome in more than 1 patient; n total number of patients in the studies; min–max number of patients in the smallest and the largest study; I2 statistic for assessing the between-study heterogeneity (from 0 (no heterogeneity) to 1 (extreme heterogeneity))

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the muscle volumes per vertical group

Outcomes	Norm	Hypo	Hyper	
N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	
Masseter volume (cm3)	6; 99 [4–33]	17.2 (14.7–19.7); I2 = 0.96	6; 88 [5–22]	20.8 (15.7–25.9); I2 = 0.98	7; 89 [5–25]	15.7 (12.9–18.4); I2 = 0.95	
Lateral pterygoid volume (cm3)	1; 9 [9–9]	7.0 (6.3–7.8)	1; 5 [5–5]	6.57 (6.1–7.0)	1; 6 [6–6]	5.7 (5.1–6.4)	
Medial pterygoid volume (cm3)	3; 53 [9–33]	8.1 (6.3–10.0); I2 = 0.92	3; 35 [5–19]	8.2 (5.3–11.2); I2 = 0.92	3; 39 [6–25]	7.2 (4.4–10.0); I2 = 0.91	
Masseter volume_bite (cm3)	1; 20 [20–20]	14.9 (14.3–15.5)	1; 20 [20–20]	16.7 (16.2–17.2)	1; 20 [20–20]	12.7 (12.2–13.2)	
N number of studies reporting the outcome in more than 1 patient; n total number of patients in the studies; min–max number of patients in the smallest and the largest study; I2 statistic for assessing the between-study heterogeneity (from 0 (no heterogeneity) to 1 (extreme heterogeneity))

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for the angle of insertion of the masseter muscle relative to Frankfort horizontal plane per vertical group

Outcomes	Norm	Hypo	Hyper	
N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	
Masseter angle (°)	3; 103 [9–83]	69.3 (64.2–74.4); I2 = 0.95	3; 81 [5–65]	71.4 (69.2–73.5); I2 = 0.66	3; 48 [6–34]	65.2 (59.3–71.1); I2 = 0.86	
N number of studies reporting the outcome in more than 1 patient; n total number of patients in the studies; min–max number of patients in the smallest and the largest study; I2 statistic for assessing the between-study heterogeneity (from 0 (no heterogeneity) to 1 (extreme heterogeneity))

Table 4 Descriptive statistics for the width and thickness of the masseter muscle per vertical group

Outcomes	Norm	Hypo	Hyper	
N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	N, n (min–max)	Pooled mean (95% CI); I2	
All patients	
Masseter thickness (mm)	9; 202 [4–55]	11.6 (10.4–12.7); I2 = 0.98	9; 152 [10–28]	12.9 (11.6–14.1); I2 = 0.98	9; 165 [5–32]	10.5 (9.1–12.0); I2 = 0.98	
Masseter width (mm)	2; 24 [4–20]	41.6 (33.5–49.7); I2 = 0.79	1; 20 [20–20]	46.0 (44.2–47.7)	2; 25 [5–20]	39.3 (36.8–41.7); I2 = 0.3	
Masseter thickness _bite (mm)	7; 183 [10–55]	12.9 (11.6–14.2); I2 = 0.97	8; 137 [10–28]	14.7 (13.4–15.9); I2 = 0.97	8; 160 [10–32]	12.2 (10.8–13.7); I2 = 0.98	
Masseter width _bite (mm)	1; 20 [20–20]	40.0 (38.2–41.7)	1; 20 [20–20]	42.0 (40.7–43.3)	1; 20 [20–20]	37.0 (35.7–38.3)	
Males	
Masseter thickness (mm)	4; 50 [6–26]	13.2 (11.7–14.6); I2 = 0.84	4; 38 [4–17]	14.7 (14.0–15.3); I2 = 0.39	4; 38 [8–11]	12.2 (9.9–14.5); I2 = 0.94	
Masseter width (mm)	0; 0		0; 0		0; 0		
Masseter thickness _bite (mm)	4; 50 [6–26]	14.7 (13.7–15.7); I2 = 0.63	4; 38 [4–17]	16.1 (15.6–16.7); I2 = 0	4; 38 [8–11]	13.7 (11.2–16.3); I2 = 0.95	
Masseter width _bite	0; 0		0; 0		0; 0		
Females	
Masseter thickness (mm)	4; 66 [8–29]	12.1 (11.7–12.6); I2 = 0	4; 35 [7–11]	12.8 (11.6–13.9); I2 = 0.72	4; 61 [8–24]	11.5 (10.5–12.5); I2 = 0.71	
Masseter width (mm)	0; 0		0; 0		0; 0		
Masseter thickness _bite (mm)	4; 66 [8–29]	13.5 (13.0–13.9); I2 = 0	4; 35 [7–11]	14.5 (14.1–15.0); I2 = 0.4	4; 61 [8–24]	12.9 (12.1–13.7); I2 = 0.62	
Masseter width _bite (mm)	0; 0		0; 0		0; 0		
N: number of studies reporting the outcome in more than 1 patient; n: total number of patients in the studies; min–max: number of patients in the smallest and the largest study; I2: statistic for assessing the between-study heterogeneity (from 0 (no heterogeneity) to 1 (extreme heterogeneity))

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

Outcome	Hypo versus Norm*	Hyper versus Norm**	Hyper versus Hypo***	Heterogeneity**** (p value)	Tau2	Overall p value*****	
Pooled MD (95%CI)	p value	Pooled MD (95%CI)	p value	Pooled MD (95%CI)	p value		
Masseter CSA (mm2)	0.50 (0.05–0.95)	0.0289	− 0.54 (− 0.95 to − 0.12)	0.0110	− 1.04 (− 1.49 to − 0.59)	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.61	0.0002	
Masseter volume (cm3)	1.65 (0.45–2.85)	0.0070	− 2.64 (− 3.90 to − 1.38)	< 0.0001	− 4.29 (− 5.52 to − 3.06)	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	21.32	< 0.0001	
Masseter thickness (mm)	1.14 (0.74–1.53)	 < 0.0001	− 1.14 (− 1.56 to − 0.73)	0.0001	− 2.28 (− 2.71 to − 1.85)	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	3.38	< 0.0001	
Masseter thickness_bite (mm)	1.61 (0.96–2.27)	 < 0.0001	− 1.00 (− 1.65 to − 0.35)	0.0026	− 2.61 (− 3.26 to − 1.97)	< 0.0001	< 0.0001	3.36	< 0.0001	
Statistically significant results at the 5% level

MD mean difference, CI confidence interval

*Positive mean difference = mean higher in hypo than in norm

**Positive mean difference = mean higher in hyper than in norm

***Positive mean difference = mean higher in hyper than in hypo

****Residual heterogeneity

*****For testing the equality of the mean in the three groups

Fig. 2 Forest plot of masseter cross-sectional area (CSA) in normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergent patients

Fig. 3 Forest plot of masseter volume in normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergent patients

Fig. 4 Forest plot of masseter thickness at relaxation in normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergent patients

Fig. 5 Forest plot of masseter thickness at bite in normodivergent, hypodivergent and hyperdivergent patients

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, 63–65]. 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.

Supplementary Information

Additional file1 (DOCX 1154 KB)

Additional file2 (DOCX 464 KB)

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.

Publisher's Note

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

1. Carlson DS Theories of craniofacial growth in the postgenomic era Semin Orthod 2005 11 172 183 10.1053/j.sodo.2005.07.002
Carlson DS. Theories of craniofacial growth in the postgenomic era. Semin Orthod. 2005;11:172–83. 10.1053/j.sodo.2005.07.002.10.1053/j.sodo.2005.07.002
2. Weinans H Huiskes R Grootenboer HJ The behavior of adaptive bone-remodeling simulation models J Biomech 1992 25 12 1425 1441 10.1016/0021-9290(92)90056-7 1491020
Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ. The behavior of adaptive bone-remodeling simulation models. J Biomech. 1992;25(12):1425–41. 10.1016/0021-9290(92)90056-7.1491020 10.1016/0021-9290(92)90056-7
3. Heller M Duda G Claes L Femoral strain distribution under complex thigh muscle loading during gait J Biomech 1998 31 147 10.1016/S0021-9290(98)80296-0
Heller M, Duda G, Claes L. Femoral strain distribution under complex thigh muscle loading during gait. J Biomech. 1998;31:147. 10.1016/S0021-9290(98)80296-0.10.1016/S0021-9290(98)80296-0
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 10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103034
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. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103034.10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103034
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 13 351 361 10.1093/ejo/13.5.351 1748181
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. 10.1093/ejo/13.5.351.1748181 10.1093/ejo/13.5.351
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 81 752 756 10.1177/0810752 12407089
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. 10.1177/0810752.12407089 10.1177/0810752
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 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.013
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. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.013.10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.013
8. Sassouni V A classification of skeletal facial types Am J Orthod 1969 55 109 123 10.1016/0002-9416(69)90122-5 5249177
Sassouni V. A classification of skeletal facial types. Am J Orthod. 1969;55:109–23. 10.1016/0002-9416(69)90122-5.5249177 10.1016/0002-9416(69)90122-5
9. Takada K Lowe AA Freund VK Canonical correlations between masticatory muscle orientation and dentoskeletal morphology in children Am J Orthod 1984 86 331 341 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90144-1 6592982
Takada K, Lowe AA, Freund VK. Canonical correlations between masticatory muscle orientation and dentoskeletal morphology in children. Am J Orthod. 1984;86:331–41. 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90144-1.6592982 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90144-1
10. Proctor AD DeVincenzo JP Masseter muscle position relative to dentofacial form Angle Orthod 1970 40 37 44 10.1043/0003-3219(1970)040<0037:MMPRTD>2.0.CO;2 5262686
Proctor AD, DeVincenzo JP. Masseter muscle position relative to dentofacial form. Angle Orthod. 1970;40:37–44. 10.1043/0003-3219(1970)040%3c0037:MMPRTD%3e2.0.CO;2.5262686 10.1043/0003-3219(1970)040<0037:MMPRTD>2.0.CO;2
11. Kiliaridis S The importance of masticatory muscle function in dentofacial growth Semin Orthod 2006 12 110 119 10.1053/j.sodo.2006.01.004
Kiliaridis S. The importance of masticatory muscle function in dentofacial growth. Semin Orthod. 2006;12:110–9. 10.1053/j.sodo.2006.01.004.10.1053/j.sodo.2006.01.004
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 10.1093/ejo/7.4.273 3865789
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. 10.1093/ejo/7.4.273.3865789 10.1093/ejo/7.4.273
13. Proffit WR Fields HW Occlusal forces in normal- and long-face children J Dent Res 1983 62 571 574 10.1177/00220345830620051301 6573374
Proffit WR, Fields HW. Occlusal forces in normal- and long-face children. J Dent Res. 1983;62:571–4. 10.1177/00220345830620051301.6573374 10.1177/00220345830620051301
14. Katsaros SKC The effects of myotonic dystrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy on the orofacial muscles and dentofacial morphology Acta Odontol Scand 1998 56 369 374 10.1080/000163598428347 10066119
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. 10.1080/000163598428347.10066119 10.1080/000163598428347
15. Dibbets JM One century of Wolff’s law, in bone biodynamics in orthodontic ands orthopaedic treatment Craniofac Growth Ser 1992 27 1 13
Dibbets JM. One century of Wolff’s law, in bone biodynamics in orthodontic ands orthopaedic treatment. Craniofac Growth Ser. 1992;27:1–13.
16. Enlow DH Wolff’s law and the factor of architectonic circumstance Am J Orthod 1968 54 803 822 10.1016/0002-9416(68)90001-8 5245744
Enlow DH. Wolff’s law and the factor of architectonic circumstance. Am J Orthod. 1968;54:803–22. 10.1016/0002-9416(68)90001-8.5245744 10.1016/0002-9416(68)90001-8
17. Weijs WA Hillen B Relationships between masticatory muscle cross-section and skull shape J Dent Res 1984 63 1154 1157 10.1177/00220345840630091201 6589280
Weijs WA, Hillen B. Relationships between masticatory muscle cross-section and skull shape. J Dent Res. 1984;63:1154–7. 10.1177/00220345840630091201.6589280 10.1177/00220345840630091201
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 70 423 431 10.1002/ajpa.1330700403 3766712
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. 10.1002/ajpa.1330700403.3766712 10.1002/ajpa.1330700403
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 80 429 445 10.1002/ajpa.1330800404 2603948
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. 10.1002/ajpa.1330800404.2603948 10.1002/ajpa.1330800404
20. Kiliaridis S Kälebo P Masseter muscle thickness measured by ultrasonography and its relation to facial morphology J Dent Res 1991 70 1262 1265 10.1177/00220345910700090601 1918575
Kiliaridis S, Kälebo P. Masseter muscle thickness measured by ultrasonography and its relation to facial morphology. J Dent Res. 1991;70:1262–5. 10.1177/00220345910700090601.1918575 10.1177/00220345910700090601
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 100 164 171 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1992.tb01734.x
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. 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1992.tb01734.x.10.1111/j.1600-0722.1992.tb01734.x
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 41 323 332 10.1016/0003-9969(95)00136-0 8771323
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. 10.1016/0003-9969(95)00136-0.8771323 10.1016/0003-9969(95)00136-0
23. Benington P Masseter muscle volume measured using ultrasonography and its relationship with facial morphology Eur J Orthod 1999 21 659 670 10.1093/ejo/21.6.659 10665195
Benington P. Masseter muscle volume measured using ultrasonography and its relationship with facial morphology. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21:659–70. 10.1093/ejo/21.6.659.10665195 10.1093/ejo/21.6.659
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 111 183 188 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00035.x 12786947
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. 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00035.x.12786947 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00035.x
25. Şatıroğlu F Arun T Işık F Comparative data on facial morphology and muscle thickness using ultrasonography Eur J Orthod 2005 27 562 567 10.1093/ejo/cji052 16135538
Şatıroğlu F, Arun T, Işık F. Comparative data on facial morphology and muscle thickness using ultrasonography. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:562–7. 10.1093/ejo/cji052.16135538 10.1093/ejo/cji052
26. Kubota M Maxillofacial morphology and masseter muscle thickness in adults Eur J Orthod 1998 20 535 542 10.1093/ejo/20.5.535 9825556
Kubota M. Maxillofacial morphology and masseter muscle thickness in adults. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:535–42. 10.1093/ejo/20.5.535.9825556 10.1093/ejo/20.5.535
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 23 726 731 10.4103/0970-9290.111247 23649053
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. 10.4103/0970-9290.111247.23649053 10.4103/0970-9290.111247
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 30 217 225 10.1093/ejo/cjm105 18263891
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. 10.1093/ejo/cjm105.18263891 10.1093/ejo/cjm105
29. Evirgen Ş Review on the applications of ultrasonography in dentomaxillofacial region World J Radiol 2016 8 50 10.4329/wjr.v8.i1.50 26834943
Evirgen Ş. Review on the applications of ultrasonography in dentomaxillofacial region. World J Radiol. 2016;8:50. 10.4329/wjr.v8.i1.50.26834943 10.4329/wjr.v8.i1.50
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 29 230 236 10.1002/jcu.1025 11323778
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. 10.1002/jcu.1025.11323778 10.1002/jcu.1025
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 1084 10.1016/0003-9969(94)90061-2 7717890
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. 10.1016/0003-9969(94)90061-2.7717890 10.1016/0003-9969(94)90061-2
32. Rani S Ravi MS Masseter muscle thickness in different skeletal morphology: an ultrasonographic study Indian J Dent Res 2010 21 402 407 10.4103/0970-9290.70812 20930353
Rani S, Ravi MS. Masseter muscle thickness in different skeletal morphology: an ultrasonographic study. Indian J Dent Res. 2010;21:402–7. 10.4103/0970-9290.70812.20930353 10.4103/0970-9290.70812
33. Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM Boutron I Hoffmann TC Mulrow CD The PRISMA statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2020 2021 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71
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. 10.1136/bmj.n71.10.1136/bmj.n71
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 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458 27932337
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. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458.27932337 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458
35. Moola S Munn Z Tufanaru C Aromataris E Sears K Sfetcu R Chapter 7: systematic reviews of etiology and risk JBI Man Evid Synth JBI 2020 10.46658/JBIMES-20-08
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. 10.46658/JBIMES-20-08.10.46658/JBIMES-20-08
36. Papageorgiou SN Meta-analysis for orthodontists: part I—how to choose effect measure and statistical model J Orthod 2014 41 317 326 10.1179/1465313314Y.0000000111 25404668
Papageorgiou SN. Meta-analysis for orthodontists: part I—how to choose effect measure and statistical model. J Orthod. 2014;41:317–26. 10.1179/1465313314Y.0000000111.25404668 10.1179/1465313314Y.0000000111
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 335 914 916 10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80 17974687
Ioannidis JPA, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2007;335:914–6. 10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80.17974687 10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80
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 64 380 382 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011 21185693
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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011.21185693 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011
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 10.17116/stomat202110003172
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. 10.17116/stomat202110003172.10.17116/stomat202110003172
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 115 406 414 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.11.017 23453032
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. 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.11.017.23453032 10.1016/j.oooo.2012.11.017
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 83 446 455 10.1016/S0011-8524(15)30063-5
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. 10.1016/S0011-8524(15)30063-5.10.1016/S0011-8524(15)30063-5
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 35 307 317 10.1177/0161734613502468 24081727
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. 10.1177/0161734613502468.24081727 10.1177/0161734613502468
44. Ariji Y Kawamata A Yoshida K Sakuma S Nawa H Fujishita M Three-dimensional morphology of the masseter muscle in patients with mandibular prognathism Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000 29 113 118 10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600515 10808226
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. 10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600515.10808226 10.1038/sj/dmfr/4600515
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 10.1016/j.ortho.2013.12.003 24456631
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. 10.1016/j.ortho.2013.12.003.24456631 10.1016/j.ortho.2013.12.003
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 46 313 320 10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.5.313 33122455
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. 10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.5.313.33122455 10.5125/jkaoms.2020.46.5.313
47. Kim H Shin D Kang J Kim S Lim H Lee J Anatomical characteristics of the lateral pterygoid muscle in mandibular prognathism Appl Sci 2021 11 7970 10.3390/app11177970
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. 10.3390/app11177970.10.3390/app11177970
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 19423966
Zepa K, Urtane I, Krisjane Z, Krumina G. Three-dimensional evaluation of musculoskeletal in class II and class III patients. Stomatologija. 2009;11:15–20.19423966
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 19 343 349 10.1590/S1678-77572011005000008 21655772
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. 10.1590/S1678-77572011005000008.21655772 10.1590/S1678-77572011005000008
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 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.10.030 30448395
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. 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.10.030.30448395 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2018.10.030
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 12 111 124 10.1016/j.ortho.2013.09.002 24156908
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. 10.1016/j.ortho.2013.09.002.24156908 10.1016/j.ortho.2013.09.002
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 10.1007/BF00696087
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. 10.1007/BF00696087.10.1007/BF00696087
53. Maughan RJ Watson JS Weir J Strength and cross-sectional area of human skeletal muscle J Physiol 1983 338 37 49 10.1113/jphysiol.1983.sp014658 6875963
Maughan RJ, Watson JS, Weir J. Strength and cross-sectional area of human skeletal muscle. J Physiol. 1983;338:37–49. 10.1113/jphysiol.1983.sp014658.6875963 10.1113/jphysiol.1983.sp014658
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 51 323 331 10.3109/00016359309040583 8279273
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. 10.3109/00016359309040583.8279273 10.3109/00016359309040583
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 10.1038/s41598-018-24293-3 29662127
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. 10.1038/s41598-018-24293-3.29662127 10.1038/s41598-018-24293-3
56. Kiliaridis S Mejersjö C Thilander B Muscle function and craniofacial morphology: a clinical study in patients with myotonic dystrophy Eur J Orthod 1989 11 131 138 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035975 2767145
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. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035975.2767145 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035975
57. Rowlerson A Raoul G Daniel Y Close J Maurage C-A Ferri J Fiber-type differences in masseter muscle associated with different facial morphologies Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2005 127 37 46 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.025
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. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.025.10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.025
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 70 440 448 10.1016/j.joms.2011.04.007 21821327
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. 10.1016/j.joms.2011.04.007.21821327 10.1016/j.joms.2011.04.007
59. Cruz CV Mattos CT Maia JC Granjeiro JM Reis MF Mucha JN Genetic polymorphisms underlying the skeletal Class III phenotype Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2017 151 700 707 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.013
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. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.013.10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.09.013
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 1285 10.1177/00220345920710060301 1613176
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. 10.1177/00220345920710060301.1613176 10.1177/00220345920710060301
61. Reis Durão AP Morosolli A Brown J Jacobs R Masseter muscle measurement performed by ultrasound: a systematic review Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2017 46 20170052 10.1259/dmfr.20170052
Reis Durão AP, Morosolli A, Brown J, Jacobs R. Masseter muscle measurement performed by ultrasound: a systematic review. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol. 2017;46:20170052. 10.1259/dmfr.20170052.10.1259/dmfr.20170052
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 17 751 759 10.1007/s11548-021-02513-y 34625872
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. 10.1007/s11548-021-02513-y.34625872 10.1007/s11548-021-02513-y
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 1062 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00939.x 12453259
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. 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00939.x.12453259 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00939.x
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 30 430 435 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01052.x 12631169
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. 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01052.x.12631169 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01052.x
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 68 10.1054/ijom.2002.0259 12653235
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. 10.1054/ijom.2002.0259.12653235 10.1054/ijom.2002.0259
66. Sarvera DM Ackermanb JL Orthodontics about face: the re-emergence of the esthetic paradigm Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000 117 575 576 10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70204-6
Sarvera DM, Ackermanb JL. Orthodontics about face: the re-emergence of the esthetic paradigm. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;117:575–6. 10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70204-6.10.1016/S0889-5406(00)70204-6
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 13 203 213 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01496.x 21040463
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. 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01496.x.21040463 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01496.x
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 37 570 577 10.1093/ejo/cju089 25582592
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. 10.1093/ejo/cju089.25582592 10.1093/ejo/cju089
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 10.5812/ijo.67036
Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S. The effects of class II functional appliance treatment are influenced by the masticatory muscle functional capacity. Iran J Orthod. 2018. 10.5812/ijo.67036.10.5812/ijo.67036
