ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2026
Multiparametric Ultrasonographic Phenotyping of the Masseter Muscle in Temporomandibular Disorders and Clinically Defined Probable Bruxism.
Article in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTemporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and bruxism-related masticatory muscle activity may influence masseter morphology, mechanical response and B-mode texture, but their combined ultrasonographic phenotype is unclear.
objectiveTo evaluate whether clinically defined TMD status and probable bruxism-positive phenotype are associated with multiparametric masseter ultrasound profiles.
methodsThis prospective single-centre study included 108 adults classified as TMD-negative/bruxism-negative controls (C0, n = 31), TMD-negative/probable bruxism-positive (T3, n = 25), TMD-positive/bruxism-negative (T2, n = 25) and TMD-positive/probable bruxism-positive (T1, n = 27). Sleep and awake bruxism were not separately distinguished. Bilateral thickness, cross-sectional-area-derived sonographic estimated volume, strain elastography and resting fractal dimension (FD) were analysed offline by a single observer blinded to group allocation.
resultsAfter false-discovery-rate correction, four-group differences remained significant for resting/clenching thickness, estimated volume, strain elastography and resting FD (all q ≤ 0.001), with medium-to-large effects. T3 showed higher morphometric values, but sex-stratified and sex-adjusted analyses indicated that this finding required caution because of male predominance. GEE models identified sex, age, functional condition and group-by-condition terms as important determinants. FD repeatability was excellent (ICC [A,1] = 0.964; 95% CI, 0.941-0.977; coefficient of variation, 0.54%).
conclusionMultiparametric masseter ultrasonography may capture complementary morphology, strain-response and B-mode texture phenotypes in TMD and clinically defined probable bruxism. Findings should be interpreted as phenotype-enrichment rather than diagnostic evidence because TMD subtypes were heterogeneous and sleep/awake bruxism was not separately quantified.
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.