Maria Charalampidou, Gregory S Antonarakis, Stavros Kiliaridis
{"title":"Changes of masseter muscle thickness during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances: a prospective controlled study in growing children.","authors":"Maria Charalampidou, Gregory S Antonarakis, Stavros Kiliaridis","doi":"10.1093/ejo/cjaf063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine the effects of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances on masseter muscle thickness in growing children.</p><p><strong>Subjects and method: </strong>Forty children with a mean pre-treatment age of 12.9 ± 1.19 years with mild to moderate malocclusions were treated with fixed appliances. Forty untreated children served as the control group, with a mean age of 9.14 ± 0.91 years at the start of the study. Masseter muscle thickness was measured by ultrasonography at treatment start and 1 year later in the patient group, and at equivalent times in the control group. Differences within and between the groups were evaluated using paired and independent sample t-tests, respectively. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine associations between different variables, including age, gender, and treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Masseter thickness at the beginning of the study was smaller (P = .004) in the control group (10.57 ± 1.04 mm) than in the treatment group (11.26 ± 1.03 mm), an observation that can be partly explained by the initial age difference between the groups. One year later, masseter muscle thickness increased in the control group (0.38 ± 0.50 mm, P < .001) while no statistically significant changes were found in the treatment group (-0.08 ± 0.55 mm, P = .37). The observed change in masseter muscle thickness in the two groups presented statistically significant differences (0.46 ± 0.11 mm, P < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Masseter muscles in growing children normally increase in thickness annually. Fixed appliance treatment seems to hinder this growth during a 1-year treatment period. This information should be considered when assessing the progress and stability of the orthodontic treatment of certain malocclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":11989,"journal":{"name":"European journal of orthodontics","volume":"47 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaf063","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To examine the effects of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances on masseter muscle thickness in growing children.
Subjects and method: Forty children with a mean pre-treatment age of 12.9 ± 1.19 years with mild to moderate malocclusions were treated with fixed appliances. Forty untreated children served as the control group, with a mean age of 9.14 ± 0.91 years at the start of the study. Masseter muscle thickness was measured by ultrasonography at treatment start and 1 year later in the patient group, and at equivalent times in the control group. Differences within and between the groups were evaluated using paired and independent sample t-tests, respectively. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine associations between different variables, including age, gender, and treatment.
Results: Masseter thickness at the beginning of the study was smaller (P = .004) in the control group (10.57 ± 1.04 mm) than in the treatment group (11.26 ± 1.03 mm), an observation that can be partly explained by the initial age difference between the groups. One year later, masseter muscle thickness increased in the control group (0.38 ± 0.50 mm, P < .001) while no statistically significant changes were found in the treatment group (-0.08 ± 0.55 mm, P = .37). The observed change in masseter muscle thickness in the two groups presented statistically significant differences (0.46 ± 0.11 mm, P < .001).
Conclusions: Masseter muscles in growing children normally increase in thickness annually. Fixed appliance treatment seems to hinder this growth during a 1-year treatment period. This information should be considered when assessing the progress and stability of the orthodontic treatment of certain malocclusions.
目的:探讨固定矫治器正畸治疗对成长期儿童咬肌厚度的影响。对象与方法:采用固定矫治器治疗轻、中度错颌患儿40例,治疗前平均年龄12.9±1.19岁。40例未经治疗的儿童作为对照组,研究开始时平均年龄为9.14±0.91岁。在治疗开始时和1年后,患者组和对照组分别在相同时间用超声测量咬肌厚度。分别使用配对和独立样本t检验来评估组内和组间的差异。采用多元回归分析来检验不同变量(包括年龄、性别和治疗)之间的关联。结果:研究开始时,对照组的咬肌厚度(10.57±1.04 mm)小于治疗组(11.26±1.03 mm) (P = 0.004),这一观察结果可以部分解释为两组之间的初始年龄差异。1年后,对照组的咬肌厚度增加(0.38±0.50 mm, P < 0.001),而治疗组的咬肌厚度变化无统计学意义(-0.08±0.55 mm, P = 0.37)。两组咬肌厚度变化差异有统计学意义(0.46±0.11 mm, P < 0.001)。结论:在正常情况下,儿童咬肌的厚度会逐年增加。在1年的治疗期间,固定矫治器治疗似乎阻碍了这种生长。当评估某些错颌的正畸治疗的进展和稳定性时,应考虑这些信息。
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Orthodontics publishes papers of excellence on all aspects of orthodontics including craniofacial development and growth. The emphasis of the journal is on full research papers. Succinct and carefully prepared papers are favoured in terms of impact as well as readability.