Discussion **ThumbPulling: Cope or Not?** (1 Viewer)

[eshker33]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

 

[fent]

dnr

 

[misanthrope]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

dnr

 

[syna]

 

[khanlite]

 

[paracelsus]

go ahead and delete this for me

 

[FoidSlayer]

 

[Hyporoxin]

*dnr*** **
****

 

[andi]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

low effort post

 

[makeaway]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

dnr, only mewing works

 

[XvideosDemon]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

 

[fent]

dnr, only mewing works

isnt even worth it if your not 5

 

[XvideosDemon]

isnt even worth it if your not 5

Rs

 

[Dexter]

thumb pulling is cope

if you want i can explain it to you

 

[fent]

thumb pulling is cope

if you want i can explain it to you

dont waste your time

 

[nineteen]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

 

[goyboy.hero]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

Dnr it's cope. Please rope

 

[syna]

PrettyBoyMaxxing ts forum is decaying hard.

 

[Dexter]

PrettyBoyMaxxing ts forum is decaying hard.

why is admin doing this
letting in more users obviously means more retards which results in difficulty in moderation

 

[PrettyBoyMaxxing]

PrettyBoyMaxxing ts forum is decaying hard.

Threads like this will always exist no matter the forum

 

[syna]

Threads like this will always exist no matter the forum

we used to take down shit like this, now we cant.

 

[Telmisartan]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

 

[DanishLoser]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

I agree thumbpulling isnt cope. But how jordan wood said himself the results he got was not worth the time and mental energy he spent trying and figuring out a plan and god u gotta do this every 1 or 2 hours and how low inhib are u to do this in class or doing it anywhere. Js find a surgeon and hardmaxx son

 

[Catastrophicnoob]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

State of this shitty forum
Mark me as solution

 

[Tabula Rasa]

If you are young enough you can split your suture from thumbpulling but you aren't getting any expansion

 

[friendly sub5]

 

[Telmisartan]

I agree thumbpulling isnt cope

jordan wood

 

[DanishLoser]

Chill idk much abt thumbpulling. I treat it as a shit method. Its arguably worse than bs imo. Plus im talking personally i would rather hardmaxx + i will

 

[DanishLoser]

And im not caught but i swr jordan wood was a main advicate for thumb pulling. Unless i missed something. I havent checked up on what he thinks

 

[makeaway]

isnt even worth it if your not 5

that doesnt even make sense, obv its important for development as a kid, but its most important to do it in puberty cause thats when most development happens.

 

[fent]

that doesnt even make sense, obv its important for development as a kid, but its most important to do it in puberty cause thats when most development happens.

No your just simply wrong here, 90% of craniofacial development is done by age 12. Mewing will not have super significant impact during puberty and is only seen to have signifcant impact if you are adolescent.

 

[iblamevisual]

dnr

 

[TheEl1tesWillGoD0wn]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

Dnr but thumbpulling is absolute shit

 

[iblamevisual]

Dnr but thumbpulling is absolute shit

agree

 

[makeaway]

No your just simply wrong here, 90% of craniofacial development is done by age 12. Mewing will not have super significant impact during puberty and is only seen to have signifcant impact if you are adolescent.

where do you get that 90% from? your ass? it doesnt take a genius to figure out alot of growth happens in puberty. Hormones accelerate bone growth... youre not even near close to full development at 12 or whatever youre trying to say. anyways not gonna spend more time arguing with an iqlet faggot.

 

[fent]

where do you get that 90% from? your ass? it doesnt take a genius to figure out alot of growth happens in puberty. Hormones accelerate bone growth... youre not even near close to full development at 12 or whatever youre trying to say. anyways not gonna spend more time arguing with an iqlet faggot.

 

[fent]

where do you get that 90% from? your ass? it doesnt take a genius to figure out alot of growth happens in puberty. Hormones accelerate bone growth... youre not even near close to full development at 12 or whatever youre trying to say. anyways not gonna spend more time arguing with an iqlet faggot.

Maybe research a little before insulting

 

[makeaway]

Maybe research a little before insulting

im crine wtf is that source jfl

 

[fent]

im crine wtf is that source jfl

bro this is common knowledge search anywhere

 

[makeaway]

bro this is common knowledge search anywhere

no its not, the cranium vault is 90% done by 5 but other than that maxilla, mandible etc continue and accelerates through puberty.

 

[Terza]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

all i needed to saw was ur post to rep

 

[Hexum]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

DNR

 

[fent]

no its not, the cranium vault is 90% done by 5 but other than that maxilla, mandible etc continue and accelerates through puberty.

I never said they didn't?

 

[Pxverr]

I don’t think there’s any point in explaining what ThumbPulling is, so let's get straight to the point.
Briefly: No, pulling is not "cope," and now I’m going to break down the arguments that supposedly debunk this method.

**1. "Short cycles of stress on the sutures cannot produce an osteogenic response; you need to press on the palate for hours for results!"**
My ass.
This argument contradicts existing experimental data.
Studies on animal models of cranial sutures show that cyclic mechanical loading lasting about **10 minutes a day** stimulates osteogenesis in the premaxillary and craniofacial sutures, causing new bone formation and osteoblast activity within the suture.

**EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS:**

* **First:**
* **Study:** Research on postnatal rats examining two cranial sutures—the premaxillomaxillary (PMS) and nasofrontal (NFS)—under cyclic mechanical forces.
* **Loading:** 300 mN at a frequency of 4 Hz, 20 min/day for 5 consecutive days.
* **Result:** Cyclic loading significantly increased suture width compared to the control in different age groups. Cell density in the suture increased, including osteogenic cells. The loading enhanced osteoblast involvement. Even in a relatively short period (20 min/day), mechanical excitation of the sutures stimulated cellular processes associated with growth and remodeling.

* **Second:**
* **Study:** A comparison of the effects of static vs. cyclic mechanical force on the premaxillomaxillary suture in growing rabbits.
* **Loading:** Cyclic impact at 0.2 Hz, 10 min/day, for 12 days.
* **Result:** Cyclic forces (10 min/day) stimulated significantly greater suture growth, expansion, and new bone formation compared to both the control and static loading of the same peak magnitude. Short-term cyclic stimuli proved more effective than static forces for stimulating osteogenesis in cranial sutures. Therefore, those who press their tongue against the palate 24/7 thinking they are mimicking constant orthodontic force are dumbfucks.

* **Third:**
* **Study:** 50–60-day-old rats were tested after orthopedic expansion of the premaxillomaxillary suture, comparing two cyclic interval loading protocols:
1. Group 2: 30g of force, 10 cycles, 6 sec/day.
2. Group 3: 30g of force, 1000 cycles, 10 min/day.
(For 9 consecutive days).
* **Result:** Both cyclic loading regimens statistically increased bone formation parameters compared to the control. However, in the 10 min/day group, the effect was clearly more pronounced across all measured parameters than in the 6-second group.

There is also data on cyclic loading of other cranial sutures, which can be used as an argument. From an anatomical and biomechanical standpoint, the **midpalatal suture** is not a unique structure; it belongs to the same group of craniofacial sutures with similar connective tissue structure, cellular composition, and principles of response to mechanical stress. Thus, basic patterns identified in other sutures can be applied to the palatal suture.

**2. "Finger and tongue strength are too low for bone expansion; it won't work."**
A single finger, when pressing hard, can typically generate approximately 10 to 30 N of force, and in some cases up to 40–50 N. In the studies I am relying on, the force in most cases didn't even reach 3 Newtons.

**3. "The force should go to the teeth, not the sutures; the load should be the same as a Delaire mask."**
No, quite the opposite. When the load is directed specifically at the sutures themselves, the result is greater. When the load goes through the teeth, most of the force is dissipated in the periodontal ligament area.

**RESEARCH LINKS:**
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16413234/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20575200/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12456317/)
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12454093/)
* [https://scispace.com/pdf/mechanical...uture-development-and-patency-417nmm7c7p.pdf)

So much text on this tiktok slop DNR

 

[fent]

So much text on this tiktok slop DNR

Your in the same boat pal