ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2026
Assessment of masseter and temporalis muscle properties in healthy young adults using shear wave elastography and MyotonPRO.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the relationship between stiffness measurements obtained using shear wave elastography (SWE) and MyotonPRO (MPRO) within the same muscle and functional state, and to establish sample-specific baseline values for the masseter and temporalis muscles in healthy young adults aged 19-29 years under standardized resting and contraction conditions.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 100 healthy young adults aged 19-29 years were included. For analytical consistency, MPRO stiffness values were abbreviated as MR-S, MC-S, TR-S, and TC-S, representing the masseter at rest, masseter during contraction, temporalis at rest, and temporalis during contraction, respectively; the corresponding SWE measurements were denoted as MR-SWE, MC-SWE, TR-SWE, and TC-SWE. Holm correction was applied across the 120 correlation tests to account for multiple testing.
resultsNo significant correlation was found between SWE- and MPRO-derived stiffness values for the masseter or temporalis muscles under resting conditions (MR-S vs. MR-SWE, Holm-adjusted p = 1.000, r = 0.065; TR-S vs. TR-SWE, Holm-adjusted p = 1.000, r = -0.100). During contraction, a weak positive correlation was observed for the masseter muscle (MC-S vs. MC-SWE, Holm-adjusted p = 0.012, r = 0.268), whereas the very weak correlation for the temporalis muscle was no longer statistically significant after correction (TC-S vs. TC-SWE, Holm-adjusted p = 1.000, r = 0.141). Standardized comparison using z-scores showed no significant differences between the two methods for either muscle at rest or during contraction (MR, p = 0.872; TR, p = 0.607; MC, p = 0.608; TC, p = 0.697).
conclusionsAlthough standardized z-score comparisons showed no significant group-level differences between SWE and MPRO, the absence of significant correlations at rest and the presence of a significant but weak correlation only for the masseter during contraction after Holm correction indicate limited individual-level correspondence between the two methods. These findings suggest that SWE and MPRO may provide complementary rather than directly interchangeable information on masticatory muscle properties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42870123What 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.