77 mm (1.31) at relative rest and 33.92 mm (1.49) at maximum mouth opening with Mean MMF of 0.69 mm (0.21) and the Mean intermolar distance for Group 3 (Dolichofacial) was 31.4 mm (0.79) at relative rest and 31.04 mm (0.80) at maximum mouth opening selleck chemical Baricitinib with Mean MMF of 0.39 mm (0.08). Table 2 Descriptive statistics Kruskal walls (ANOVA) followed by Dunns test was used to assess any significant difference in the between the three groups [Table 3]. Table 3 Inferential statistics There is significant difference in the Mean MMF values between the three groups. There was no significant difference in the Mean MMF values between males and females in Group 1 and 2 but Group 3 shows significant difference in the MMF values [Table 4 and Figure 5].

Table 4 Mann Whitney test (difference between Median mandibular flexure values of males and females in the 3 groups) Figure 5 Difference between Mean MMF values of 3 Groups DISCUSSION The results of the study indicate that Mean (SD) intermolar distance for the Group 1 (Brachyfacial) was 37.73 mm (0.83) with Mean MMF of 1.12 mm (0.09). The Mean intermolar distance for Group 2 (Mesofacial) was 34.77 mm (1.31) with Mean MMF of 0.69 mm (0.21) and the Mean intermolar distance for Group 3 (Dolichofacial) was 31.4 mm (0.79) with Mean MMF of 0.39 mm (0.08). The Mean intermolar distance was maximum in the Brachyfacial type of individuals. The results in this study were similar to that of Nasby et al.[10] He demonstrated narrower intermolar widths in high-angle children.

The study suggests that MMF is maximum in Brachyfacial type and minimum in Dolichofacial type and maximum values of MMF are seen in Maximum opening of the jaw as compared to relative rest in all the 3 groups. Musculature can be considered as the possible link in this close relationship between the transverse dimension and vertical facial morphology. A number of studies[11,12,13] have illustrated the influence of masticatory muscles on craniofacial growth. The general consensus[14] is that individuals with strong or thick mandibular elevator muscles tend to exhibit wider transverse head dimensions. Strong masticatory musculature is often associated with a brachyfacial pattern (short face). This muscular hyperfunction causes an increased mechanical loading of the jaws. This in turn may cause an introduction of sutural growth and bone apposition which then results in increased transverse growth of the jaws and bone bases for the dental arches.

Spronsen et al.[15] found that long-faced subjects have significantly smaller masseter and medial pterygoid muscles than normal subjects. Fikret Satirglu[13] et al. ultrasonographically measured masseter muscle thickness. They Batimastat found that individuals with thick masseter had a vertically shorter facial pattern and individuals with thin masseter have a long face. Their results showed a significant association between vertical facial pattern and masseter muscle thickness.