The association between bruxism and mandibular morphology: A cross-sectional study

Document Type : Original Article


1 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey


BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of bruxism on mandibular morphology, by comparing different mandibular measurements of bruxers and non-bruxers on panoramic radiographs.
METHODS: Data of 71 patients (32 bruxers and 39 non-bruxers) who referred to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey, from 2016 to 2019, were retrieved from the archival records. The canine-molar height, ramus width, coronoid height-width, and gonial angle were measured with Turcasoft software on panoramic radiographs obtained from the patients’ radiographic archival records. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software, and comparisons of the measurements between bruxers and non-bruxers were performed using independent samples t-test or Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate. The categorical data were analyzed using chi-square test.
RESULTS: Data of 71 patients (22 males, 49 females) aged 15-51 years were analyzed in this study. Regarding coronoid measurements, the left and right coronoid height and left coronoid width measurements were found significantly higher in bruxers than those in non-bruxers (P = 0.025, P = 0.041, P < 0.001). Although all gonial angle, ramus width, and molar and canine height measurements were higher in bruxers than those in non-bruxers, these differences were not statistically significant. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in any variable between bruxers and non-bruxers for both genders.
CONCLUSION: Given the results of the present study, the morphological changes of the mandible as a consequence of bruxism may be expressed with the changes in coronoid dimensions. However, to reach a definitive conclusion, further prospective clinical studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed.


  1. Kiliaridis S. Masticatory muscle influence on craniofacial growth. Acta Odontol Scand 1995; 53(3): 196-202.
  2. Frost HM. Wolff's Law and bone's structural adaptations to mechanical usage: An overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod 1994; 64(3): 175-88.
  3. Odman A, Mavropoulos A, Kiliaridis S. Do masticatory functional changes influence the mandibular morphology in adult rats. Arch Oral Biol 2008; 53(12): 1149-54.
  4. Kubota M, Nakano H, Sanjo I, Satoh K, Sanjo T, Kamegai T, et al. Maxillofacial morphology and masseter muscle thickness in adults. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20(5): 535-42.
  5. Azaroual MF, Fikri M, Abouqal R, Benyahya H, Zaoui F. Relationship between dimensions of muscles of mastication (masseter and lateral pterygoid) and skeletal dimensions: Study of 40 cases. Int Orthod 2014; 12(1): 111-24.
  6. Mavropoulos A, Bresin A, Kiliaridis S. Morphometric analysis of the mandible in growing rats with different masticatory functional demands: Adaptation to an upper posterior bite block. Eur J Oral Sci 2004; 112(3): 259-66.
  7. Tao J, Wu J, Zhang X. Mandibular condylar morphology for bruxers with different grinding patterns. Cranio 2016; 34(4): 219-26.
  8. Sella-Tunis T, Pokhojaev A, Sarig R, O'Higgins P, May H. Human mandibular shape is associated with masticatory muscle force. Sci Rep 2018; 8(1): 6042.
  9. Padmaja SL, Elenjickal TJ, Ram SKM, Thangasamy K. Assessment of mandibular surface area changes in bruxers versus controls on panoramic radiographic images: A case control study. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 753-61.
  10. Karakis D, Dogan A. The craniofacial morphology and maximum bite force in sleep bruxism patients with signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders. Cranio 2015; 33(1): 32-7.
  11. Palinkas M, Bataglion C, de Luca CG, Machado CN, Theodoro GT, Siessere S, et al. Impact of sleep bruxism on masseter and temporalis muscles and bite force. Cranio 2016; 34(5): 309-15.
  12. Adisen MZ, Okkesim A, Misirlioglu M, Yilmaz S. Does sleep bruxism affect masticatory muscles volume and occlusal force distribution in young subjects? A preliminary study. Cranio 2019; 37(5): 278-84.
  13. Menapace SE, Rinchuse DJ, Zullo T, Pierce CJ, Shnorhokian H. The dentofacial morphology of bruxers versus non-bruxers. Angle Orthod 1994; 64(1): 43-52.
  14. Calderon PS, Kogawa EM, Lauris JR, Conti PC. The influence of gender and bruxism on the human maximum bite force. J Appl Oral Sci 2006; 14(6): 448-53.
  15. Pizolato RA, Gaviao MB, Berretin-Felix G, Sampaio AC, Trindade Junior AS. Maximal bite force in young adults with temporomandibular disorders and bruxism. Braz Oral Res 2007; 21(3): 278-83.
  16. Kiliaridis S, Johansson A, Haraldson T, Omar R, Carlsson GE. Craniofacial morphology, occlusal traits, and bite force in persons with advanced occlusal tooth wear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107(3): 286-92.
  17. Huumonen S, Sipila K, Haikola B, Tapio M, Soderholm AL, Remes-Lyly T, et al. Influence of edentulousness on gonial angle, ramus and condylar height. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37(1): 34-8.
  18. Ingervall B, Thilander B. Relation between facial morphology and activity of the masticatory muscles. J Oral Rehabil 1974; 1(2): 131-47.
  19. Almukhtar RM, Fabi SG. The masseter muscle and its role in facial contouring, aging, and quality of life: A literature review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 143(1): 39e-48e.
  20. Young DV, Rinchuse DJ, Pierce CJ, Zullo T. The craniofacial morphology of bruxers versus nonbruxers. Angle Orthod 1999; 69(1): 14-8.
  21. Miwa S, Wada M, Murakami S, Suganami T, Ikebe K, Maeda Y. Gonial angle measured by orthopantomography as a predictor of maximum occlusal force. J Prosthodont 2019; 28(1): e426-e430.