ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Ultrasonographic evaluation of masseter and temporalis muscle thickness and elasticity in individuals with bruxism and bruxism-related myogenous temporomandibular disorders.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the thickness and elasticity characteristics of the masseter and temporalis muscles in individuals with probable bruxism and bruxism-related myogenous temporomandibular disorders (TMD) using ultrasonography and ultrasonographic elastography. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis comparative cross-sectional study included 60 patients and 30 healthy controls. Patients were divided into probable bruxism only (Group 1, n = 30) and probable bruxism with myogenous TMD (Group 2, n = 30). Bilateral masseter and temporalis muscle thickness was measured at rest and during maximum contraction. Strain elastography was performed using a tissue phantom reference. Intergroup comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction.
resultsGroup 2 demonstrated significantly greater masseter muscle thickness than controls and Group 1, particularly during contraction (p < 0.05). Masseter elasticity ratios were significantly higher in both patient groups than controls, with the highest values in Group 2. During maximum contraction, masseter elasticity ratios were 2.98 ± 1.24 in Group 1, 3.93 ± 2.23 in Group 2, and 2.29 ± 0.87 in controls. Temporalis muscle elasticity values were also significantly increased in Group 2.
conclusionsIndividuals with probable bruxism and bruxism-related myogenous TMD demonstrated differences in masticatory muscle thickness and stiffness, particularly during maximum contraction. Ultrasonography and ultrasonographic elastography may provide complementary information regarding masticatory muscle characteristics and hyperactivity. Given the unadjusted analyses, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ultrasonography and ultrasonographic elastography may provide useful adjunctive, radiation-free imaging methods for evaluating masticatory muscle alterations in individuals with probable bruxism and bruxism-related myogenous TMD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42766039What 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.