itsoverformr
#1 Hltn
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2025
- Posts
- 969
- Reputation
- 485
The palatal suture in the mouth, that line down the middle of the upper jaw, changes a lot based on how old someone is. In kids and teens, its still pretty open and bendy, so you can push it apart with braces or expanders without too much trouble. But as people get into their twenties, it starts to lock up more, fusing together, and you need stronger forces to make any difference. By adulthood, its mostly bone solid, and trying to split it might just crack the bones around it instead, so doctors often do surgery to help with that.
Still, there are limits. Itd take longer than professional tools, and skipping days would weaken the effect. Thumbs might tip teeth instead of moving bone purely, and cadaver results might not match living tissue perfectly. I think consistency matters a lot, but its imprecise compared to calibrated gear.
Overall, while every piece like cyclic force remodeling or suture loosening leading to protraction has backing in literature, no one has tested systematic thumb pushing specifically in teens. That strikes me as a real opening for research, maybe using scans before and after to check changes in growing kids. It might not be perfect, but the components line up.
I came across this study by Boryor and others from 2013 that looked at expanding the suture in adults using a special screw on cadavers. They used skulls from older women where the suture was totally fused, and they turned the screw bit by bit until it broke open. They measured the force, and it took about 86 newtons to rupture it in all three cases. That seems like a key point, because it suggests even fused sutures can open up with enough targeted stress, maybe skipping surgery for some orthodontic fixes.
Converting that force to something more everyday, 86 newtons is around 8,769 grams of force, or roughly 8.8 kilograms, like pressing down with about 19 pounds. Thats the threshold for splitting a fully fused one in those dead specimens. Now, thinking about thumb pressure, a casual suck on the thumb might only hit 170 to 500 grams, which is way under. But if someone deliberately pushes with their thumb, it could reach 500 to 1,500 grams, and max effort maybe 2,000 to 3,000. So even strong thumb pressing only gets you 23 to 34 percent of the way to that rupture point. It feels like thumbs arent breaking anything outright, but maybe building up over time.
In regular orthodontics, they use slower expansion with 450 to 900 grams, or rapid ones up to 1,000 to 3,000. Protraction headgear, like the facemask, applies 300 to 500 per side, totaling 600 to 1,000 grams, but you wear it 12 to 14 hours a day. Interestingly, a deliberate thumb push at 500 to 1,500 grams matches or beats that headgear force in strength, though its not as steady or directed.
The idea here is a simple routine where you use your thumb to push along the whole palate, front to back. First, pull the front forward for 30 seconds to mimic protraction. Then spread the front sides out, do the middle, and the back, each for 30 seconds. Thats two minutes a session, maybe every hour while awake, adding up to 32 minutes a day of repeated pushes. It seems kind of basic, but the repetition might add up like cyclic loading in studies.
What makes expansion lead to forward movement is how it stretches not just the palatal suture, but all the ones around the maxilla, like the zygomatic, frontal, and others. That tension pulls the whole upper jaw ahead as the bones remodel. Research on mice showed that even 0.56 newtons of expansion increased width and boosted cell activity, with osteoclasts and osteoblasts kicking in to reshape things. Another study in rabbits found low cyclic forces grow cranial sutures, and slow expansion in people got 3.8 to 8.7 mm wider with just 450 to 900 grams.
Its not all straightforward though. One paper talked about how tension raises certain proteins in stem cells, shifting them toward bone growth, which is basically how orthopedics works on sutures. And rapid expansion spreads the effect to midfacial sutures, loosening them up for protraction. In fact, combining expansion with pulling forward moved the maxilla in various appliance tests, even without needing a wide palate to start. Macrophages also help by promoting bone formation under force.
Comparing this thumb method to real treatments, the force is in the ballpark, 500 to 1,500 grams versus 600 to 1,000 for headgear or more for expanders. But thumbs lack precision in direction, and you only do it briefly each day, not continuously. It covers front, middle, back sequentially, unlike fixed appliances anchored to teeth or head. Evidence for clinical stuff is solid from trials, but this is more theoretical, no direct studies yet. Adolescents would probably respond best, with open sutures.
Converting that force to something more everyday, 86 newtons is around 8,769 grams of force, or roughly 8.8 kilograms, like pressing down with about 19 pounds. Thats the threshold for splitting a fully fused one in those dead specimens. Now, thinking about thumb pressure, a casual suck on the thumb might only hit 170 to 500 grams, which is way under. But if someone deliberately pushes with their thumb, it could reach 500 to 1,500 grams, and max effort maybe 2,000 to 3,000. So even strong thumb pressing only gets you 23 to 34 percent of the way to that rupture point. It feels like thumbs arent breaking anything outright, but maybe building up over time.
In regular orthodontics, they use slower expansion with 450 to 900 grams, or rapid ones up to 1,000 to 3,000. Protraction headgear, like the facemask, applies 300 to 500 per side, totaling 600 to 1,000 grams, but you wear it 12 to 14 hours a day. Interestingly, a deliberate thumb push at 500 to 1,500 grams matches or beats that headgear force in strength, though its not as steady or directed.
The idea here is a simple routine where you use your thumb to push along the whole palate, front to back. First, pull the front forward for 30 seconds to mimic protraction. Then spread the front sides out, do the middle, and the back, each for 30 seconds. Thats two minutes a session, maybe every hour while awake, adding up to 32 minutes a day of repeated pushes. It seems kind of basic, but the repetition might add up like cyclic loading in studies.
What makes expansion lead to forward movement is how it stretches not just the palatal suture, but all the ones around the maxilla, like the zygomatic, frontal, and others. That tension pulls the whole upper jaw ahead as the bones remodel. Research on mice showed that even 0.56 newtons of expansion increased width and boosted cell activity, with osteoclasts and osteoblasts kicking in to reshape things. Another study in rabbits found low cyclic forces grow cranial sutures, and slow expansion in people got 3.8 to 8.7 mm wider with just 450 to 900 grams.
Its not all straightforward though. One paper talked about how tension raises certain proteins in stem cells, shifting them toward bone growth, which is basically how orthopedics works on sutures. And rapid expansion spreads the effect to midfacial sutures, loosening them up for protraction. In fact, combining expansion with pulling forward moved the maxilla in various appliance tests, even without needing a wide palate to start. Macrophages also help by promoting bone formation under force.
Comparing this thumb method to real treatments, the force is in the ballpark, 500 to 1,500 grams versus 600 to 1,000 for headgear or more for expanders. But thumbs lack precision in direction, and you only do it briefly each day, not continuously. It covers front, middle, back sequentially, unlike fixed appliances anchored to teeth or head. Evidence for clinical stuff is solid from trials, but this is more theoretical, no direct studies yet. Adolescents would probably respond best, with open sutures.
Still, there are limits. Itd take longer than professional tools, and skipping days would weaken the effect. Thumbs might tip teeth instead of moving bone purely, and cadaver results might not match living tissue perfectly. I think consistency matters a lot, but its imprecise compared to calibrated gear.
Overall, while every piece like cyclic force remodeling or suture loosening leading to protraction has backing in literature, no one has tested systematic thumb pushing specifically in teens. That strikes me as a real opening for research, maybe using scans before and after to check changes in growing kids. It might not be perfect, but the components line up.
2 minutes per session, every hour youre awake. Thumb pad facing down against the palate.
Step 1 — Protraction (30 seconds)Place thumb flat behind your front teeth and push forward and slightly upward. This mimics facemask protraction force on the anterior suture.
Step 2 — Front expansion (30 seconds)Push the edge of your thumb outward against the front left side of your palate, then the front right. You want lateral force not upward.
Step 3 — Mid expansion (30 seconds)Shift thumb to the middle of your palate. Push outward on each side.
Step 4 — Rear expansion (30 seconds)Move toward the back of your palate. Push outward on each side.
Do this every hour. Thats about 32 minutes of total cyclic loading per day which is comparable to what studies use.
Step 1 — Protraction (30 seconds)Place thumb flat behind your front teeth and push forward and slightly upward. This mimics facemask protraction force on the anterior suture.
Step 2 — Front expansion (30 seconds)Push the edge of your thumb outward against the front left side of your palate, then the front right. You want lateral force not upward.
Step 3 — Mid expansion (30 seconds)Shift thumb to the middle of your palate. Push outward on each side.
Step 4 — Rear expansion (30 seconds)Move toward the back of your palate. Push outward on each side.
Do this every hour. Thats about 32 minutes of total cyclic loading per day which is comparable to what studies use.
1. Boryor et al. 2013 — Suture rupture at 86 Nhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23377077/
2. Mechanical force-induced midpalatal suture remodeling in micehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17398175/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1939974/
3. Mechanically induced M2 macrophages in midpalatal suture remodelinghttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11298508/
4. Effects of RME on cranial and circummaxillary sutureshttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5161454/
5. Comparison of maxillary protraction protocolshttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4547969/
6. Effect of MARPE designs on maxillary protraction (FEM study)https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11068238/
7. Physical stimulations and osteogenesis-inducing mechanismshttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7581999/
8. Maxillary Expansion reviewhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4993819/
9. Mechanical tension and suture stem cells (Dalrd3)https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13287-025-04380-9
10. MARPE in adolescents — systematic reviewhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9317392/
11. Success rate of MARPE with polycyclic activation protocol
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8665552/
2. Mechanical force-induced midpalatal suture remodeling in micehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17398175/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1939974/
3. Mechanically induced M2 macrophages in midpalatal suture remodelinghttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11298508/
4. Effects of RME on cranial and circummaxillary sutureshttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5161454/
5. Comparison of maxillary protraction protocolshttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4547969/
6. Effect of MARPE designs on maxillary protraction (FEM study)https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11068238/
7. Physical stimulations and osteogenesis-inducing mechanismshttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7581999/
8. Maxillary Expansion reviewhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4993819/
9. Mechanical tension and suture stem cells (Dalrd3)https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13287-025-04380-9
10. MARPE in adolescents — systematic reviewhttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9317392/
11. Success rate of MARPE with polycyclic activation protocol
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8665552/
Last edited:
