Measurement plane of the cross-sectional area of the masseter muscle in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion: An artificial intelligence model.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine a measurement plane that could represent the maximum cross-sectional area (MCSA) of masseter muscle using an artificial intelligence model for patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion. METHODS: The study included 197 patients, divided into subgroups according to sex, mandibular symmetry, and mandibular plane angle. The volume, MCSA, and the cross-sectional area (CSA) at different levels were calculated automatically. The vertical distance between MCSA and mandibular foramen, along with the ratio of the masseter CSA at different levels to the MCSA (R), were also calculated. RESULTS: The MCSA and volume showed a strong correlation in the total sample and each subgroup (P <0.001). The correlation between the CSA at each level and MCSA was statistically significant (P <0.001). The peak of the r and the correlation coefficient between the CSA at different levels and MCSA were mostly present 5-10 mm above the mandibular foramen for the total sample and the subgroups. The mean of RA5 to RA10 was >0.93, whereas the corresponding correlation coefficient was >0.96, both for the entire sample and for the subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: MCSA could be used as an indicator for masseter muscle size. For patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion, the CSA 5-10 mm above the mandibular foramen, parallel to the Frankfort plane, could be used to estimate the masseter muscle MCSA.

Changes in masseter muscle morphology after surgical-orthodontic treatment in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion with mandibular asymmetry: The automatic masseter muscle segmentation model.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the masseter muscle changes after surgical-orthodontic treatment in patients with a skeletal Class III malocclusion using automatic segmentation. METHODS: Images of 120 patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion were obtained and reconstructed at T0 (pretreatment), T1 (presurgery), and T2 (6-12-month postsurgery). The patients were divided into symmetrical and asymmetrical groups. The volume, major axis length, maximum cross-sectional area, horizontal cross-sectional area 5 mm above the mandibular foramen (CSAF), and orientation were calculated automatically. RESULTS: In the asymmetrical group, the volume and major axis length on the deviated side were lower than on the nondeviated side at T0, T1, and T2 (P <0.05). There were no significant differences in maximum cross-sectional area and CSAF bilaterally. The orientation was coronally more vertical and sagittally more forward on the deviated side (both P <0.001). In the symmetrical group, there were no significant bilateral differences at T0, T1, and T2. The volume, major axis length, and CSAF decreased, and the coronal orientation was more vertical on the nondeviated side at T2 than at T0 in both groups (P <0.05). The coronal plane orientation was more inclined on the deviated side at T2 than at T0 in the asymmetrical group (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The smaller volume on the deviated side at T2 indicates the need for myofunctional training after surgery. The masseter muscle volume and the cross-sectional area did not recover to the preorthodontic levels. Studies with longer follow-up durations are needed to confirm these findings.

Early and 1-year postsurgical stability and its factors in patients with complicated skeletal Class â ¢ malocclusion treated by conventional and surgery-first approach: A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare postsurgical stability between conventional (CSA) and surgery-first (SFA) approaches and investigate its prognostic factors in patients with a skeletal Class Ⅲ extraction. METHODS: Twenty and 19 patients treated with LeFort I osteotomy and bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy (BSSRO) with premolar extraction were enrolled in SFA and CSA groups, respectively. Serial cone-beam computed tomography images obtained before surgery, immediately after surgery (T1), 3 months after surgery, and 12 months after surgery were used for 3-dimensional quantitative analysis. The condyle was segmented for analyzing volumetric changes. Repeated measures analysis of variance, independent t test, and chi-square test were used to compare time-course and intergroup differences. Pearson and Kendall correlation and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to explore prognostic factors affecting skeletal stability. RESULTS: In both CSA and SFA, postsurgical relapse mainly occurred in the mandible sagittal and vertical dimensions and during the first 3 months after surgery. Stability in SFA was significantly less than that in CSA. Intraoperatively, inferolateral condylar displacement with proximal segment inwards, clockwise rotation, and return movements after surgery were observed regardless of the treatment approach. The condylar volume remained stable over time. Multivariate regression analysis showed that posterior vertical dimension (VD) at T1 (-1.63 mm), surgical amount of mandibular setback (-10.33 mm), surgical condylar downwards displacement (-1.28 mm), and anterior overjet at T1 (6.43 mm) were the most important predictors of early mandibular relapse (r2 = 0.593). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of early relapse could be reduced by controlling the anterior, middle, and posterior constraints provided by the prediction model.