背景:咀嚼肌的解剖特征在颅面骨骼模式中有所不同。
目的:确定不同矢状和垂直颅面骨骼模式下咀嚼肌解剖特征的差异。
方法:测量厚度的研究,宽度,横截面积(CSA),不同矢状的健康患者咀嚼肌的体积和方向(I类,二级,和III类)和/或垂直(normodivergent,分歧过大,和高度发散)模式。
方法:在8个电子数据库/登记册中进行无限制的文献检索,直至2023年12月。
■研究选择,数据提取,使用定制工具进行的偏倚风险评估独立进行,一式两份.使用GRADE方法进行随机效应荟萃分析和临床建议的确定性评估。
结果:选择了34项研究(37篇出版物),共有2047名参与者,16项研究的数据被纳入荟萃分析。与正常发散患者相比,低发散患者的咬肌松弛厚度显着增加了1.14mm(95%CI0.74-1.53mm),而与正常发散和低发散患者相比,过度发散患者的咬肌厚度显着减少了-1.14mm(95%CI-1.56至-0.73mm)和-2.28mm(95%CI-2.71至-1.85mm)。在收缩过程中的咬肌厚度以及咬肌CSA和体积方面,这些组之间也存在类似的显着差异。由于研究数量不足,无法对矢状分类进行荟萃分析。
结论:咬肌厚度存在相当大的差异,在高度发散的患者中,垂直骨骼构型的CSA和体积显着减少;但是,由于纳入研究的偏倚风险较高,因此应谨慎解释结果.不同颅面模式中咀嚼肌解剖特征的这些变化可能是正畸诊断和治疗计划过程的一部分。
背景:PROSPEROCRD42022371187.
BACKGROUND: The anatomic characteristics of the masticatory muscles differ across craniofacial skeletal patterns.
OBJECTIVE: To identify differences in the anatomic characteristics of masticatory muscles across different sagittal and vertical craniofacial skeletal patterns.
METHODS: Studies measuring the thickness, width, cross-sectional area (CSA), volume and orientation of masticatory muscles in healthy patients of different sagittal (Class I, Class II, and Class III) and/or vertical (normodivergent, hypodivergent, and hyperdivergent) patterns.
METHODS: Unrestricted literature searches in 8 electronic databases/registers until December 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with a customised tool were performed independently in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analysis and assessment of the certainty of clinical recommendations with the GRADE approach were conducted.
RESULTS: 34 studies (37 publications) were selected with a total of 2047 participants and data from 16 studies were pulled in the meta-analysis. Masseter muscle thickness in relaxation was significantly greater by 1.14 mm (95% CI 0.74-1.53 mm) in hypodivergent compared to normodivergent patients while it was significantly decreased in hyperdivergent patients by - 1.14 mm (95% CI - 1.56 to - 0.73 mm) and - 2.28 mm (95% CI - 2.71 to - 1.85 mm) compared to normodivergent and hypodivergent patients respectively. Similar significant differences were seen between these groups in masseter muscle thickness during contraction as well as masseter muscle CSA and volume. Meta-analyses could not be performed for sagittal categorizations due to insufficient number of studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Considerable differences in masseter muscle thickness, CSA and volume were found across vertical skeletal configurations being significantly reduced in hyperdivergent patients; however, results should be interpreted with caution due to the high risk of bias of the included studies. These variations in the anatomic characteristics of masticatory muscles among different craniofacial patterns could be part of the orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning process.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42022371187 .