Masseter muscle measurement performed by ultrasound: a systematic review

Abstract

The aim of this study was to systematically review the existing scientific literature and evidence about (a) the validation of masseter muscle ultrasonography for accurate assessment of muscle thickness and (b) the reproducibility of masseter muscle thickness measures. An electronic literature search was conducted using determined keywords on specific databases. Preliminary search revealed 298 articles listed in Medline, Scopus and Web of Science. 60 duplicates were rejected, leaving 238 articles for review. After reading titles and abstracts, 31 articles remained. 23 articles were assessed for eligibility. These articles were categorized as follows: thickness, cross-section, volume and the length of the masseter muscle measured by ultrasonography. It is possible to verify the thickness of the masseter muscle in males and females in relaxation (10-15 and 9-13 mm, respectively) and contraction (14-19 and 12-15 mm, respectively). A similar tendency can also be evidenced in other measurements. Many studies evaluate masseter muscle dimensions to relate it to cephalometric analysis as such to evaluate morphological variations. It can be concluded that ultrasound is a reliable clinical tool for masseter muscle measurements, yet there is a need for standardization of methods and parameters to be recorded.

Tongue thickness is associated with masticatory performance of perioral muscles: Ultrasonographic study of perioral muscle characteristics in healthy young subjects

“…There were no relationships between masticatory performance and echo intensity of perioral muscle (Tables 3). 8 On the other hand, all tongue and geniohyoid muscles can be captured in the echo image, and both the cross-sectional area and the thickness can be clearly evaluated ( Figure 1) 32,33 Because the previous studies involved elderly individuals, it is difficult to directly compare those results with the findings of the present study.…”

“…Many previous studies targeting masseter muscles report using thickness rather than cross-sectional area. 8 On the other hand, all tongue and geniohyoid muscles can be captured in the echo image, and both the cross-sectional area and the thickness can be clearly evaluated (Figure 1). However, as TT and CSA of GHM have been used in many reports that showed association with muscle strength, function, 7,22,27 we used MMT, TT and CSA of GHM as the indexes of muscle size in this study.…”

“…8,9 Additionally, this apparatus is useful for evaluation of soft tissue movement during function; several reports have described observation of the tongue and geniohyoid muscle during mastication and swallowing. 8,9 Additionally, this apparatus is useful for evaluation of soft tissue movement during function; several reports have described observation of the tongue and geniohyoid muscle during mastication and swallowing.…”

“…This study examined the relationship between masticatory performance and perioral muscle characteristics, particularly those that can be evaluated with an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 8,16 and are presumably related to masticatory performance based on previous studies 4,5,7 (ie masseter muscle, geniohyoid muscle and tongue). We hypothesised that the quantity and quality of perioral muscle are both related to masticatory performance in a manner similar to that of the limb muscle and that the effectiveness of an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus for evaluation of masticatory performance would be demonstrated clearly.…”

“…There have been several reports regarding masseter and temporalis measurements by ultrasonic diagnostic apparatuses, as it is easier to observe these muscles with the aid of an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus. 8,9 Additionally, this apparatus is useful for evaluation of soft tissue movement during function; several reports have described observation of the tongue and geniohyoid muscle during mastication and swallowing. A previous study showed an age-related reduction of tongue motor skill during mastication (evaluated by using an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus), as well as an age-related reduction of masticatory performance; tongue motor skill and masticatory performance were thus determined to be interrelated.…”