Three-dimensional temporomandibular joint muscle attachment morphometry and its impacts on musculoskeletal modeling. (5th October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: She, Xin; Wei, Feng; Damon, Brooke J.; Coombs, Matthew C.; Lee, Daniel G.; Lecholop, Michael K.; Bacro, Thierry H.; Steed, Martin B.; Zheng, Naiquan; Chen, Xiaojing; Yao, Hai
• Is Part Of: Journal of biomechanics. Volume 79(2018)
• Page Start: 119
• Page End: 128
• Publication Date: 2018-10-05
• Subjects: Temporomandibular joint -- Musculoskeletal modeling -- Muscle attachment -- 3D morphometry -- Moment arm; Animal mechanics -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Biomechanics -- Periodicals; Mécanique animale -- Périodiques; Biomécanique -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 571.4305
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.08.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-9290

Abstract

Abstract: In musculoskeletal models of the human temporomandibular joint (TMJ), muscles are typically represented by force vectors that connect approximate muscle origin and insertion centroids (centroid-to-centroid force vectors). This simplification assumes equivalent moment arms and muscle lengths for all fibers within a muscle even with complex geometry and may result in inaccurate estimations of muscle force and joint loading. The objectives of this study were to quantify the three-dimensional (3D) human TMJ muscle attachment morphometry and examine its impact on TMJ mechanics. 3D muscle attachment surfaces of temporalis, masseter, lateral pterygoid, and medial pterygoid muscles of human cadaveric heads were generated by co-registering measured attachment boundaries with underlying skull models created from cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) images. A bounding box technique was used to quantify 3D muscle attachment size, shape, location, and orientation. Musculoskeletal models of the mandible were then developed and validated to assess the impact of 3D muscle attachment morphometry on joint loading during jaw maximal open-close. The 3D morphometry revealed that muscle lengths and moment arms of temporalis and masseter muscles varied substantially among muscle fibers. The values calculated from the centroid-to-centroid model were significantly different from those calculated using the 'Distributed model', which considered crucial 3D muscle attachment morphometry. Consequently, joint loading was underestimated by more than 50% in the centroid-to-centroid model. Therefore, it is necessary to consider 3D muscle attachment morphometry, especially for muscles with broad attachments, in TMJ musculoskeletal models to precisely quantify the joint mechanical environment critical for understanding TMJ function and mechanobiology.