» Articles » PMID: 27870343

The Biomechanics of Zygomatic Arch Shape

Overview
Date 2016 Nov 22
PMID 27870343
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Mammalian zygomatic arch shape is remarkably variable, ranging from nearly cylindrical to blade-like in cross section. Based on geometry, the arch can be hypothesized to be a sub-structural beam whose ability to resist deformation is related to cross sectional shape. We expect zygomatic arches with different cross sectional shapes to vary in the degree to which they resist local bending and torsion due to the contraction of the masseter muscle. A stiffer arch may lead to an increase in the relative proportion of applied muscle load being transmitted through the arch to other cranial regions, resulting in elevated cranial stress (and thus, strain). Here, we examine the mechanics of the zygomatic arch using a series of finite element modeling experiments in which the cross section of the arch of Pan troglodytes has been modified to conform to idealized shapes (cylindrical, elliptical, blade-like). We find that the shape of the zygomatic arch has local effects on stain that do not conform to beam theory. One exception is that possessing a blade-like arch leads to elevated strains at the postorbital zygomatic junction and just below the orbits. Furthermore, although modeling the arch as solid cortical bone did not have the effect of elevating strains in other parts of the face, as had been expected, it does have a small effect on stress associated with masseter contraction. These results are counterintuitive. Even though the arch has simple beam-like geometry, we fail to find a simple mechanical explanation for the diversity of arch shape. Anat Rec, 299:1734-1752, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Citing Articles

Does the model reflect the system? When two-dimensional biomechanics is not 'good enough'.

Smith A, Davis J, Panagiotopoulou O, Taylor A, Robinson C, Ward C J R Soc Interface. 2023; 20(198):20220536.

PMID: 36695017 PMC: 9874278. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2022.0536.


In vivo bone strain and finite element modeling of a rhesus macaque mandible during mastication.

Panagiotopoulou O, Iriarte-Diaz J, Wilshin S, Dechow P, Taylor A, Abraha H Zoology (Jena). 2017; 124:13-29.

PMID: 29037463 PMC: 5792078. DOI: 10.1016/j.zool.2017.08.010.

References
1.
Strait D, Wang Q, Dechow P, Ross C, Richmond B, Spencer M . Modeling elastic properties in finite-element analysis: how much precision is needed to produce an accurate model?. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2005; 283(2):275-87. DOI: 10.1002/ar.a.20172. View

2.
Davis J, Dumont E, Strait D, Grosse I . An efficient method of modeling material properties using a thermal diffusion analogy: an example based on craniofacial bone. PLoS One. 2011; 6(2):e17004. PMC: 3037934. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017004. View

3.
Teng S, Choi I, Herring S, Rensberger J . Stereological analysis of bone architecture in the pig zygomatic arch. Anat Rec. 1997; 248(2):205-13. PMC: 2821662. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0185(199706)248:2<205::AID-AR7>3.0.CO;2-R. View

4.
Strait D, Richmond B, Spencer M, Ross C, Dechow P, Wood B . Masticatory biomechanics and its relevance to early hominid phylogeny: an examination of palatal thickness using finite-element analysis. J Hum Evol. 2007; 52(5):585-99. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.11.019. View

5.
Keyak J, Rossi S . Prediction of femoral fracture load using finite element models: an examination of stress- and strain-based failure theories. J Biomech. 2000; 33(2):209-14. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(99)00152-9. View