ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of ultrasonography-based masticatory muscle thickness between temporomandibular disorders bruxers and temporomandibular disorders non-bruxers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- B-mode ultrasound radiomics of the masseter muscle for differentiating individuals with and without clinically defined probable bruxism.Oral radiology · 2026Article
- Multiparametric Ultrasonographic Phenotyping of the Masseter Muscle in Temporomandibular Disorders and Clinically Defined Probable Bruxism.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Temporomandibular Disorders Beyond Orofacial Pain: A Narrative Review of Musculoskeletal, Headache, and Central Nervous System Implications.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Ultrasound examination of asymmetry in temporomandibular disorders.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Clinical features and subgroup patterns in elderly and super-elderly TMD patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Impact of Orthodontic Treatment on Masseter Muscle Development in Pediatric Patients: A One-Year Follow-Up Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of Masseter Muscle Structure in Patients with Mandibular Asymmetry Using Ultrasonic Diagnostic Equipment.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Immediate and short-term effect of manual therapy on masseter muscle: an ultrasonography study.Oral radiology · 2025Article
- Clinical and MRI markers for acute vs chronic temporomandibular disorders using a machine learning and deep neural networks.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Association Between Gum Chewing and Temporomandibular Disorders.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Masticatory Muscle Pain and Associated Complaints-An Analysis of the Frequency and Coexistence of Symptoms Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Oral Clinical and Radiological Signs of Excessive Occlusal Forces in Bruxism.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Clinical Dental Midline Shift Is Not a Predictor of the Side of Shorter Hemimandible: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Diagnostic Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To compare masticatory muscle thickness in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) during rest and clenching, and by body position, using ultrasonography. This prospective study included 96 patients with TMD (67 females, 29 males; mean age: 40.41 ± 17.88 years): group 1, comprising 66 patients with TMD without bruxism (TMD_nonbruxer), and group 2, comprising 30 patients with concurrent TMD and bruxism (TMD_bruxer). In patients with TMD, bruxism was correlated with the presence of tinnitus, muscle stiffness, sleep problems, psychological stress, and restricted mouth opening. The masseter muscle significantly thickened during clenching (11.16 ± 3.03 mm vs 14.04 ± 3.47 mm, p < 0.001), whereas the temporalis muscle showed no significant increase in thickness from resting to clenching in an upright position (7.91 ± 1.98 vs 8.39 ± 2.08, p = 0.103). Similarly, during clenching in the supine position, the masseter muscle was significantly thicker compared with rest (11.24 ± 2.42 vs 13.49 ± 3.09, p < 0.001), but no significant difference was observed in temporal muscle thickness (8.21 ± 2.16 vs 8.43 ± 1.94, p = 0.464). In comparison between two groups, the average thickness of the masseter muscle was greater among TMD_bruxers than among TMD_nonbruxers in both the upright and supine positions (all p < 0.05). In the generalized lineal model, female sex (B = - 1.018, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.855 to - 0.181, p = 0.017) and bruxism (B = 0.868, 95% CI 0.567 to 1.169, p = 0.048) significantly predicted changes in masseter muscle thickness. Female sex (B = - 0.201, 95% CI - 0.299 to - 0.103, p = 0.011), increased age (B = - 0.003, 95% CI - 0.005 to 0.000, p = 0.038), and muscle stiffness (B = - 1.373, 95% CI - 2.369 to - 0.376, p = 0.007) were linked to decreased temporal muscle thickness. Comparing TMD nonbruxer and bruxer muscle thicknesses in upright and supine positions revealed significant increased thickness in the masseter muscle during clenching but not in the temporalis muscle. Masseter muscle thickness varied significantly by sex, body position, and resting/clenching, notably influenced by bruxism. These findings emphasize the relevance of these factors in clinical examinations of patients with TMD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.