SynthesisOral radiology2026
Masseter muscle stiffness in bruxism and myofascial pain-related temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative ultrasound elastography studies.
Synthesis in Oral radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multiparametric Ultrasonographic Phenotyping of the Masseter Muscle in Temporomandibular Disorders and Clinically Defined Probable Bruxism.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically review quantitative ultrasound elastography evidence and meta-analyze whether masseter muscle stiffness differs between individuals with bruxism and/or myofascial pain–related temporomandibular disorders (TMD) and healthy controls.
methodsThis systematic review followed PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and OpenGrey were searched from inception to November 2025. Eligible studies were observational human studies that quantified masseter stiffness using shear wave elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse imaging and included a healthy control group. The primary meta-analysis pooled standardized mean differences (Hedges g) using a random-effects model with Hartung–Knapp adjustment. A supportive sensitivity analysis pooled mean differences (MD) in kPa after unit harmonization. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, small-study effects were explored with funnel plot inspection and Egger’s test (noting limited power with < 10 datasets), and certainty of evidence was graded using GRADE.
resultsSeven studies (eight datasets) including 190 patients and 202 controls (n = 392) were analyzed. Masseter stiffness was higher in patients than controls in the primary analysis (Hedges g = 1.485; 95% CI 0.763–2.207; p = 0.00183), with substantial heterogeneity (I²=84.1%). The kPa-based sensitivity analysis showed a similar direction and significance (MD = 6.16 kPa; 95% CI 3.67–8.65; p = 0.000628; I²=84.4%). Leave-one-out analyses indicated robust findings. Evidence certainty was very low.
conclusionsMasseter stiffness is higher in individuals with bruxism and/or myofascial pain–related TMD than in healthy controls. However, the substantial heterogeneity and very low certainty of evidence limit the interpretation of absolute values, and elastography findings should be interpreted cautiously and in conjunction with clinical assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41874803What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.