eshker33
Iron
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2025
- Posts
- 30
- Reputation
- 18
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)
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)
