ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of masseter muscle thickness of mouth breathing patients using ultrasonography.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Handheld point-of-care ultrasound for chairside assessment of masseter muscle: a pilot study.Oral radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic mouth breathing negatively affects the growth of the craniofacial complex and creates problems on the dental structures and adjacent skeletal muscle structures. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the possible effects of this situation on the muscles in the chewing system by evaluating the masseter muscle thickness in mouth-breathing individuals by ultrasonography. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 50 patients (26 males and 24 females) between the ages of 18-65 years were included in the study and constituted the mouth breathing group, while a total of 50 patients (24 males and 26 females) constituted the control group. The masseter muscles of the patients were monitored both at rest and during contraction, separately on the right and left sides for both groups, and thickness measurements were made by ultrasonography imaging.
resultsAccording to the data obtained, the masseter muscle thickness values of the mouth breathing male patient group were found to be significantly lower than the control male group according to the variables of side and contraction status (p < 0.05), while no significant value was observed in the comparison of the female patient group and the control group (p > 0.05). While no difference was observed in the evaluation of the patient and control groups according to age factors (p > 0.05), the muscle thicknesses of male patients were significantly higher than those of female patients on both sides and in both positions in the gender variable (p < 0.05).
conclusionIt can be stated that mouth breathing causes a negative effect on masticatory functions by creating an obstacle to normal physiology in the masticatory system and reduces the activation of the masseter muscle, which is one of the main elements of masticatory function.
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.