OBJECTIVE: The buccinator muscle forms the lateral wall of the oral cavity. It is presumed to aid mastication by maintaining bolus position. Such a function would involve thickening the cheek, possibly compressing the alveolar bone and contributing to malocclusions. However, neither buccinator deformation nor its effect on pressure has been demonstrated. Our objective was to evaluate buccinator EMG during feeding, its changes in length and thickness, and the pressure exerted on its alveolar attachment, using miniature pigs as an animal model. METHODS: EMG of the buccinator and other oral muscles was recorded with fine-wire electrodes. Anteroposterior length and mediolateral thickness of the buccinator were evaluated with implanted sonomicrometry crystals, and pressure was measured by flat transducers placed beneath the mandibular origin of the buccinator. Recordings were made during feeding and muscle stimulation. Tissues were collected postmortem for histology. RESULTS: During mastication, buccinator EMG showed regular peaks that preceded those of the jaw closers. Pattern differences clearly distinguished working and balancing sides. The buccinator shortened and thickened when it contracted. Positive pressures were observed at the mandibular attachment of the buccinator, increasing when the muscle was active. Histological evaluation showed a complex interweaving of fibres closely associated with salivary tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Buccinator contraction does thicken the cheek, and during mastication this activity takes place just as the closing stroke begins. In addition to controlling the bolus, there may be an effect on salivation. Despite the fact that the muscle pulls on its attachment, the local mechanical environment at the alveolar bone is one of positive pressure. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: The buccinator muscle forms the lateral wall of the oral cavity. It is presumed to aid mastication by maintaining bolus position. Such a function would involve thickening the cheek, possibly compressing the alveolar bone and contributing to malocclusions. However, neither buccinator deformation nor its effect on pressure has been demonstrated. Our objective was to evaluate buccinator EMG during feeding, its changes in length and thickness, and the pressure exerted on its alveolar attachment, using miniature pigs as an animal model. METHODS: EMG of the buccinator and other oral muscles was recorded with fine-wire electrodes. Anteroposterior length and mediolateral thickness of the buccinator were evaluated with implanted sonomicrometry crystals, and pressure was measured by flat transducers placed beneath the mandibular origin of the buccinator. Recordings were made during feeding and muscle stimulation. Tissues were collected postmortem for histology. RESULTS: During mastication, buccinator EMG showed regular peaks that preceded those of the jaw closers. Pattern differences clearly distinguished working and balancing sides. The buccinator shortened and thickened when it contracted. Positive pressures were observed at the mandibular attachment of the buccinator, increasing when the muscle was active. Histological evaluation showed a complex interweaving of fibres closely associated with salivary tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Buccinator contraction does thicken the cheek, and during mastication this activity takes place just as the closing stroke begins. In addition to controlling the bolus, there may be an effect on salivation. Despite the fact that the muscle pulls on its attachment, the local mechanical environment at the alveolar bone is one of positive pressure. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Shaina D Holman; Regina Campbell-Malone; Peng Ding; Estela M Gierbolini-Norat; Stacey L Lukasik; Danielle R Waranch; Rebecca Z German Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Monal Depani; Andrew M Ferry; Andrew E Grush; Tanir A Moreno; Lloyd M Jones; James F Thornton Journal: Semin Plast Surg Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 2.195
Authors: Shaina Devi Holman; Danielle R Waranch; Regina Campbell-Malone; Peng Ding; Estela M Gierbolini-Norat; Stacey L Lukasik; Rebecca Z German Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 2.714