Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2026
Assessment of masseter and temporalis muscle properties in healthy young adults using shear wave elastography and MyotonPRO.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Artaş Aslıhan, Aşantoğrol Firdevs, Gündoğar Zübeyde Uçar, Şencan Zeynep, Çetin Ceyda Şevval, İnce Rümeysa, Beger Orhan, Cihan Ömer Faruk, Sarı Fatih
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To 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.
METHODS: In 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.
RESULTS: No 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).
CONCLUSIONS: Although 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.
METHODS: In 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.
RESULTS: No 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).
CONCLUSIONS: Although 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.