It is over at a correlation coefficient of .3 to .6 if you didn't have good posture as a child (Scientific Research)

Dude420

Dude420

Ascend or Rope
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Posts
3,044
Reputation
6,677
Many practitioners have recognized that subjects with a large mandibular plane inclination and long-face morphology are characterized by an extended head posture and a forward inclined cervical column.
Subjects with a large cranio-cervical angle had, on average, large anterior face heights, maxillary and mandibular retrognathism, and a large mandibular plane inclination.


42678


42679


42677


The results showed that the most conspicuous cluster of associations was between growth rotation of the mandible, assessed by structural regional superimposition, and the change in the cranio-cervical angles. Correlation coefficients of about 0.5 indicated that with flexion of the head, i.e. when the cranio-cervical angle was reduced, there was a more pronounced forward growth rotation of the mandible, whereas extension of the head, with an increase of cranio-cervical angle, was accompanied by a reduced forward rotation or even backward rotation of the mandible.
This supported findings, suggested by the cross-sectional study, that growth co-ordination between changes in craniofacial morphology and postural changes exists, and that the co-ordination is centred on the development of the mandible.

the differences in cranio-cervical posture resulted in very different types of facial development.
The very small craniocervical angle at 9 years of age was followed by a marked forward growth of both maxilla and mandible, whereas the large cranio-cervical angle at the age of about 9 years resulted in a vertical facial development that could also be seen in the vertical position change of the hyoid bone. The cranio-cervical angle 2–4 years before the peak pubertal growth velocity therefore gives predictive information regarding subsequent facial development.

To provide this explanation all the available evidence was considered and an attempt was made to link the chain of events. There was an association between head posture and craniofacial morphology, and cranio-cervical posture influenced subsequent craniofacial growth. Obstruction of the upper airway could lead to a postural change resulting in extension of the cranio-cervical angle. The precise mechanism of coupling is not known, but it was assumed that it must be present, and it was given the general designation ‘neuromuscular feedback’.
The next link in the chain posed a bigger question. The mechanism was intuitively derived from the results of the first cross-sectional study of associations between head posture and craniofacial morphology (Solow and Tallgren, 1976), and was termed ‘soft-tissue stretching’,which was also used to designate the name of a hypothesis that was proposed (Solow and Kreiborg, 1977) (Figure 4).
The differences in craniofacial morphology could be explained in terms of forces that the soft-tissue layer of facial skin and muscles exert on the facial skeleton. The idea was that this layer would be passively stretched when the head was extended in relation to the cervical column. This would increase the forces on the skeletal structures, and such forces would restrict the forward growth of the maxilla and the mandible, and redirect it more caudally.

Source:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/99e6/d719bb9b3904a7ac19bed02f86c5ed939f30.pdf
 
  • +1
Reactions: Mewcel, SHARK, Extra Chromosome and 1 other person
Its all from young bro.
 
Shit thread kill yourself.

What you forgot to mention:

42686
 
  • +1
Reactions: Tricky, Deleted member 1464 and Steve bachall
IT, IS, OVER.
 
But to be safe, if you guys ever have kids don't let them use electronic devices before puberty because that's where shit posture comes from.
 
Shit thread kill yourself.

What you forgot to mention:

View attachment 42686


JFL .3-.06 is a very legit correlation, they are so many variables that can affect craniofacial growth that obviously you would only expect to make a predictive statement out of the most extreme cases.

That statement only relates to one of the studies on the topic they found anyway.

"Conclusion
The importance of good body posture and function of the airway is of considerable importance in orthodontics and the concept of ‘functional and postural competency’ in dentofacial development cannot be overlooked in treatment planning and the management of a broad range of craniofacial conditions."
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Extra Chromosome
JFL .3-.06 is a very legit correlation, they are so many variables that can affect craniofacial growth that obviously you would only expect to make a predictive statement out of the most extreme cases.
So you're saying this doesn't really matter that much....I wonder what this correlation looks like with all those outliers removed.
 
So you're saying this doesn't really matter that much....I wonder what this correlation looks like with all those outliers removed.

If you are tall you are more likely to play in the NBA, but I won't make a predictive statement that you will end up in the NBA unless you are an extreme outlier because there are many other variables at play. Nonetheless, I can affirm that the correlation is none negligible at .3-.6. This is pretty much what it means.
 
If you are tall you are more likely to play in the NBA, but I won't make a predictive statement that you will end up in the NBA unless you are an extreme outlier because there are many other variables at play. Nonetheless, I can affirm that the correlation is none negligible at .3-.6. This is pretty much what it means.
Except the NBA here is forwards growth and that's the prediction you primarily care about. Most people didn't have posture bad enough to inhibit forwards growth.
 
Except the NBA here is forwards growth and that's the prediction you primarily care about. Most people didn't have posture bad enough to inhibit forwards growth.

Stop thinking in black or white terms, the more your posture is bad the easier it becomes to make a predictive statement about your forward growth obviously. Extreme cases are more likely to indicate or counterindicate theoretical claims.

The also cites other studies like this one:
Analysis of craniofacial correlations in cross-sectional studies is, however, uncertain due to difficulty in eliminating the effect of topographical correlations. In order to further analyse whether the findings reflected growthco-ordinating mechanisms, a longitudinal study was carried out. The aim of the investigation was to analyse the correlations between growth changes in craniofacial morphology, and those in head and cervical posture (Solow and SiersbækNielsen, 1986). Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 43 children were recorded in the mirror position on two occasions before the start of orthodontic treatment. The mean duration of the period of observation was 2.7 years and associations between growth changes for dimensions representing craniofacial morphology and postural angles were analysed. By focusing on growth changes only, some of the disadvantages of conventional cross-sectional analyses could be avoided.
The results showed that the most conspicuous cluster of associations was between growth rotation of the mandible, assessed by structural regional superimposition, and the change in the cranio-cervical angles. Correlation coefficients of about 0.5 indicated that with flexion of the head, i.e. when the cranio-cervical angle was reduced, there was a more pronounced forward growth rotation of the mandible, whereas extension of the head, with an increase of cranio-cervical angle, was accompanied by a reduced forward rotation or even backward rotation of the mandible.

-
Only extreme cases affecting the forward growth is not what they are concluding, you clearly haven't read the entire paper, you clearly just searched for whatever to nitpick on and make a flawed argument around in a way to confirm your pre-established opinion. It is over for ConfirmationBiasCel.
 
Last edited:
It is over if you didn't have good posture as a child (Scientific Research)
yet you make a bold claim in the title when the research is inconclusive and many authors say it's incorrect to even assume this.

42712


It's over for hypocrite cels, the contribution of this factor is small enough that it probably hasn't affected anyone's aesthetics on this site. You're no better than sensationalist journalists.
 
Last edited:
It is over if you didn't have good posture as a child (Scientific Research)
yet you make a bold claim in the title when the research is inconclusive and many authors say it's incorrect to even assume this.

View attachment 42712

It's over for hypocrite cels

Is that a cherrypick quote in a cherrypick different study? Because there are dozens of studies indicating the same thing as OP, it is in fact a very often cited study. It is over for egoprotectioncel.
 
Last edited:
Is that a nitpick different studies? Because there are dozens of studies indicating the same thing as OP, it is in fact a very often cited study.
No it's from a more recent aggregate. It's not a cherrypick, it's just saying it's easy to misinterpret the data depending on how you measure it. Furthermore the mroe recent study says
42717
(Systematic Review Craniocervical posture and craniofacial morphology) (And before you retards misinterpret significant, it means that the results are statistically significant, or just not the results of random chance, not that they're necessarily important)
 
No it's from a more recent aggregate. It's not a cherrypick, it's just saying it's easy to misinterpret the data depending on how you measure it. Furthermore the mroe recent study says View attachment 42717 (Systematic Review Craniocervical posture and craniofacial morphology) (And before you retards misinterpret significant, it means that the results are statistically significant, or just not the results of random chance, not that they're necessarily important)

Cool, I am so surprise that there isn't always 100% agreement in the scientific community on everything, especially in regards to environmental factors affecting facial growth, mindblown, you got me there. Btw, according to researchgate, your studied been quoted 6 times while my study been quoted 160 times, one of them seem to be preferred by the scientific community.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...on_and_Growth_of_the_Facial_Part_of_the_Skull
The aim of this study was to determine any correlation between natural head position and cranio-cervical growth direction and if natural head position influences facial growth direction. Subjects with anterior mandible growth do position their heads more vertically and have a shorter face, and those with posterior mandible growth tilt their heads more backwards and have a longer face. An adaptive head position can be a factor in altering the direction of facial growth.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_posture_related_to_craniofacial_development
an increased craniocervical angle was found in conjunction with a less-than-average forward rotation of the mandible

https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_Using_a_New_Method_for_Evaluating_Curvature
There is significant correlation between cervical column posture angles and parameters ANB(mandibular angular point angle) and Wits in Cl. II patients.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227846157_Head_posture_and_craniofacial_morphology
A comprehensive set of correlations was found between craniofacial morphology and head posture. The correlations were similar for both head positions investigated. Of the postural variables, the position of the head in relation to the cervical column showed the largest set of correlations with craniofacial morphology. Extension of the head in relation to the cervical column was found in connection with large anterior and small posterior facial heights, small antero-posterior craniofacial dimensions, large inclination of the mandible to the anterior cranial base and to the nasal plane, facial retrognathism, a large cranial base angle, and a small nasopharyngeal space.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...cervicovertebral_morphology_in_adult_subjects
Subjects with anterior facial growth rotation have greater cervical spine inclination and angulation, higher cervical vertebrae and intervertebral spaces, longer upper cervical spines and shorter distances GoC2 and PmC2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...l_dimension_and_the_growth_of_facial_skeleton
The results show that the position of the head extension in relation to the cervical spine is most often associated with class II maloclusion. Such a position of the head is associated with increased front and reduced rear height of the face and it creates conditions for the facial growth with backwards rotation. The increased values of the craniocervical angle are accompanied by increased values of angles of inclination of the jaw, which also affects the increase of front face height.

Oh, that one is 2016 so I win then.

Might as well ban all scientific studies on this board because you can find some other cherrypick study out there which came to different conclusions.

It is over for cels that argue with Dude420.
 
Last edited:
Never began. :feelsuhh:
 
IT'S OVER BOYS, can i still reverse some damage if i'm 16 and improve my posture now?
 
Isn't it the opposite tough?

Poor tongue posture/mouth breathing causes downward growth wich contribute to narrow airway and then the head goes forward to compensate
 
  • +1
Reactions: bonecel
your studied been quoted 6 times while my study been quoted 160 times, one of them seem to be preferred by the scientific community.
Because the former is a far older study...it's over for idiotcels. Your last study has 0 citations btw. Furthermore, I'm sure all of these studies still have a correlation of "mild to moderate", indicating that this didn't really make much of a difference for most of our faces outside of the extremes.
Cool, I am so surprise that there isn't always 100% agreement in the scientific community on everything, especially in regards to environmental factors affecting facial growth, mindblown, you got me ther
My thing was literally an aggregate of all studies regarding this topic you moron, not new research...it doesn't matter what other scientists think about it unless they blatantly falsified data on it.

Don't expect much from a guy who thinks there are no tall ethnics :lul:
 
Last edited:
If this is true, it never even began.
 
:feelshaha:
Because the former is a far older study...it's over for idiotcels. Your last study has 0 citations btw. Furthermore, I'm sure all of these studies still have a correlation of "mild to moderate", indicating that this didn't really make much of a difference for most of our faces outside of the extremes.

My thing was literally an aggregate of all studies regarding this topic you moron, not new research...it doesn't matter what other scientists think about it unless they blatantly falsified data on it.

Don't expect much from a guy who thinks there are no tall ethnics :lul:

My researches falsify data while your study has the objective truth, sure buddy boyo, it is over for desperatecel. Your article was written for the European Journal of Orthodontics by fucking Brazilians shithole :feelshaha: No sign of biases whatsoever. Most of their citations are from orthodontist papers as well. Obviously, the won't say orthodontists destroy patients face and orthodontist should all be eradicated from their profession in the Journal of Orthodontists. Several studies found correlation stop coping with the confirmation bias work out there that confirm your biases JFL.
 
Last edited:
:feelshaha:

My researches falsify data while your study has the objective truth, sure buddy boyo, it is over for desperatecel. Your article was written for the European Journal of Orthodontics by fucking Brazilians shithole :feelshaha: No sign of biases whatsoever. Most of their citations are from orthodontist papers as well. Obviously, the won't say orthodontists destroy patients face and orthodontist should all be eradicated from their profession in the Journal of Orthodontists. Several studies found correlation stop coping with the confirmation bias work out there that confirm your biases JFL.
??? I'm telling you to literally look at the r value in your studies.
 
??? I'm telling you to literally look at the r value in your studies.

You are pointing the preponderance of genetics, are you expecting a correlation of 1.0 to prove that environmental factors affect the expression of the genome? .3-.6 is a very legit correlation coefficient. It is over for nonesensicalcel.
 
You are pointing out the genetics should account for a lot, are you expecting a correlation of 1.0 to prove that environmental factors affect the expression of the genome? .3-.5 is a very legit correlation coefficient. It is over for nonesensicalcel.
No, that correlation means that your title is inaccurate. (for the 3rd time). Furthermore you called my paper a "brazilian shithole" and think the orthodontists are scheming together to suppress this information...this is how I know you're a total moron. Do you even realize why they decided to study this angle? Because orthodontists noticed it in their patients. Also before you get your jaw surgery, read through this forum http://jawsurgeryforums.com/index.php/board,2.0.html
 
No, that correlation means that your title is inaccurate. (for the 3rd time). Furthermore you called my paper a "brazilian shithole" and think the orthodontists are scheming together to suppress this information...this is how I know you're a total moron. Do you even realize why they decided to study this angle? Because orthodontists noticed it in their patients.

I fixed the title for you in case people believe genetics have no effect on phenotype. :feelsuhh:
 
Also before you get your jaw surgery, read through this forum http://jawsurgeryforums.com/index.php/board,2.0.html

Stop with your anecdotal crap, you can find anecdotal dissatisfaction for any surgery out there, the satisfaction rate of bimax surgery is empirically very high according to every study I found, here is one;
Of the patients who had reported moderate to high levels of problems pre-surgery, the majority reported improvements in facial appearance (91.3%), appearance of the teeth (97.0%), biting (96.3%), chewing (92.3%), and eating function (76.5%). Overall, 93.9% of patients reported better conditions after surgery, and the satisfaction level was very high (VAS 91.6%). The VAS score for QoL increased significantly from pre-surgery (73.0%) to post-surgery (93.6%) (P=0.0001). The OQLQ score was also significantly decreased after surgery, reflecting improvements in the 'social aspects of dentofacial deformity', 'facial aesthetics', 'oral function', and 'awareness of dentofacial aesthetics' domains (P=0.0001). Overall, the patients who underwent orthognathic surgery were satisfied and had improved QoL. The satisfaction rate in the present study reflects successful treatment with orthognathic surgery.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29373200

It also has around a 85% rate of treating my sleep apnea, from what I understood of my particular case, I believe it is very high, it is a no brainer.
 

Similar threads

.Myth
Replies
366
Views
21K
ph4ntom
ph4ntom
anticel
Replies
135
Views
10K
the_nextDavidLaid
the_nextDavidLaid
ascension!
Replies
92
Views
6K
psl5.8specimen
psl5.8specimen

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top