Relationships between the size and spatial morphology of human masseter and medial pterygoid muscles, the craniofacial skeleton, and jaw biomechanics

Abstract

The relationship between human craniofacial morphology and the biomechanical efficiency of bite force generation in widely varying muscular and skeletal types is unknown. To address this problem, we selected 22 subjects with different facial morphologies and used magnetic resonance imaging, cephalometric radiography, and data from dental casts to reconstruct their craniofacial tissues in three dimensions. Conventional cephalometric analyses were carried out, and the cross‐sectional sizes of the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles were measured from reconstituted sections. The potential abilities of the muscles to generate bite forces at the molar teeth and mandibular condyles were calculated according to static equilibrium theory using muscle, first molar, and condylar moment arms. On average, the masseter muscle was about 66% larger in cross section than the medial pterygoid and was inclined more anteriorly relative to the functional occlusal plane. There was a significant positive correlation (P < 0.01) between the cross‐sectional areas of the masseter and medial pterygoid muscles (r = 0.75) and between the bizygomatic arch width and masseter cross‐sectional area (r = 0.56) and medial pterygoid cross‐sectional area (r = 0.69). The masseter muscle was always a more efficient producer of vertically oriented bite force than the medial pterygoid. Putative bite force from the medial pterygoid muscle alone correlated positively with mandibular length and inversely with upper face height. When muscle and tooth moment arms were considered together, a system efficient at producing force on the first molar was statistically associated with a face having a large intergonial width, small intercondylar width, narrow dental arch, forward maxilla, and forward mandible. There was no significant correlation between muscle cross‐sectional areas and their respective putative bite forces. This suggests that there is no simple relationship between the tension‐generating capacity of the muscles and their mechanical efficiency as described by their spatial arrangement. The study shows that in a modern human population so many combinations of biomechanically relevant variables are possible that subjects cannot easily be placed into ideal or nonideal categories for producing molar force. Our findings also confirm the impression that similar bite‐force efficiencies can be found in subjects with disparate facial features.