Jorge Pinares Toledo1,2, Roberto Marileo Zagal3, Loreto Bruce Castillo4, Rodrigo Villanueva Conejeros4. 1. Área de Radiología, Departamento de Patología y Medicina Oral, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Chile, Sergio Livingstone Polhammer 943, Independencia, Santiago, Chile. jpinares@odontologia.uchile.cl. 2. Odontología, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Campus San Joaquin, Avda. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile. jpinares@odontologia.uchile.cl. 3. Instituto de Neurocirugía Dr Alfonso Asenjo, Avda. José Manuel Infante 553, Providencia, Santiago, Chile. 4. Odontología, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Campus San Joaquin, Avda. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: According to some authors, the buccal space is incompletely closed with no real anatomical separation from the masticator space, and also has no fascial limit toward the cranial and caudal regions. However, several other authors consider this anatomic area to be a separated space. The goal of this study was to provide a detailed description of the normal anatomy using medical images and human cadaveric head material dissection of this facial anatomic region, to precisely clarify its condition as an extension of the masticator space or an independent space. METHODS: The buccomasseteric area in 25 male and female patients aged 14-68 years, who were referred for various head and neck disorders that did not compromise the masticatory and buccal area, was analyzed by magnetic resonance imaging on the axial and coronal planes. The region was further examined by dissection of the buccomasseteric area in four heads of fresh adult male and female human cadavers aged 30-65 years. RESULTS: The findings demonstrated that the buccal compartment should be considered part of the masticator space, rather than a space in itself. This was mainly because a corridor was positioned medially to the tendon of the masseter muscle that communicated the infratemporal region of the masticator space with the buccal region, with no fascial barrier at this level that could separate it from the masticator space. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that the buccal compartment is part of the masticator space, rather than a space in itself.
OBJECTIVES: According to some authors, the buccal space is incompletely closed with no real anatomical separation from the masticator space, and also has no fascial limit toward the cranial and caudal regions. However, several other authors consider this anatomic area to be a separated space. The goal of this study was to provide a detailed description of the normal anatomy using medical images and human cadaveric head material dissection of this facial anatomic region, to precisely clarify its condition as an extension of the masticator space or an independent space. METHODS: The buccomasseteric area in 25 male and female patients aged 14-68 years, who were referred for various head and neck disorders that did not compromise the masticatory and buccal area, was analyzed by magnetic resonance imaging on the axial and coronal planes. The region was further examined by dissection of the buccomasseteric area in four heads of fresh adult male and female human cadavers aged 30-65 years. RESULTS: The findings demonstrated that the buccal compartment should be considered part of the masticator space, rather than a space in itself. This was mainly because a corridor was positioned medially to the tendon of the masseter muscle that communicated the infratemporal region of the masticator space with the buccal region, with no fascial barrier at this level that could separate it from the masticator space. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that the buccal compartment is part of the masticator space, rather than a space in itself.