Notifications
Clear all

NOTICE:

DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website are not engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. Do not use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. Do not begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision.

Has anyone seen results?  

Page 4 / 4
  RSS
Abdulrahman
Reputable Member
Posted by: EddieMoney

 

Notice how all phenotypes have "prognathic" faces when the average skulls are considered . Actually, both the European and African have a vertically short maxilla. The Asian has a long maxilla vertically due to the colder climate adaptation (air has more time to be warmed if it enters the face vertically vs horizontal like European and African faces).

This illustration which you base your analysis on is not correct. It uses two European skulls that do not present Caucasian phenotype averages.

See below the illustration that shows the significant difference in protrusion and other features.

z

EDIT: sorry for making 3 posts to reply to the same person but it's really hard to manage quotes on this forum platform.

my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/

ReplyQuote
Posted : 04/01/2019 11:50 pm
EddieMoney
Reputable Member
Posted by: Abdulrahman
Posted by: EddieMoney

 

Notice how all phenotypes have "prognathic" faces when the average skulls are considered . Actually, both the European and African have a vertically short maxilla. The Asian has a long maxilla vertically due to the colder climate adaptation (air has more time to be warmed if it enters the face vertically vs horizontal like European and African faces).

This illustration which you base your analysis on is not correct. It uses two European skulls that do not present Caucasian phenotype averages.

See below the illustration that shows the significant difference in protrusion and other features.

z

EDIT: sorry for making 3 posts to reply to the same person but it's really hard to manage quotes on this forum platform.

These replicas match up to average faces of Whites quite well. They feature very strong pogonion length, a tall lower third, a large mandible on the woman, and a decently short maxilla on the male.

Where the male skull seems off is the forehead. Too flat and vertical. White males have stronger slopes with age usually. The female skull is practically a life replica of the tall White female face however. The male I believe seems to be a Mediterranean male due to the softer features. It is a bit feminized I will admit but proportionally it is very European.

Anyway, the point is all races have prognathic jaws. The difference is Africans have a more fleshy and soft (neotenic) profile due to the smallness of the bony features.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 05/01/2019 12:07 am
EddieMoney
Reputable Member
Posted by: Abdulrahman
Posted by: EddieMoney

Healthy African profiles on the other hand have a balance between fleshy features and youthful bone development (weak brow and chin). The jaws are protrusive in a healthy way, unlike bimax. For example you can tell this man's face is not collapsed unlike the bimax girl above. 

That's text book example of bimaxlliry protrusion. And if you notice his A point and Pog point line up which indicated good mandible and chin position. People with his condition, especially Asians, go to the doctors all the time asking for the lips to be brought back even though their occlusion would be perfect.

Doctors label this case prototypical bimaxlliry protrusion and explain to the patient that there is nothing wrong with them and that if they were to have teeth extractions to fix this problem they would be worse off from an orthodontic perspective.

I don't care what orthodontists say. The man posted above has no CFD unlike the Asian woman. She has lip incompetence and what looks to be a collapsed face and narrow airway. The man from Africa has no such features. You confuse fleshy features with bimax when clearly the difference in development between this:

And this:

Is astounding. The first woman has ideal and aesthetic development where the second has an obviously downward grown face. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 05/01/2019 12:21 am
Abdulrahman
Reputable Member
Posted by: EddieMoney

These replicas match up to average faces of Whites quite well. They feature very strong pogonion length, a tall lower third, a large mandible on the woman, and a decently short maxilla on the male.

Where the male skull seems off is the forehead. Too flat and vertical. White males have stronger slopes with age usually. The female skull is practically a life replica of the tall White female face however. The male I believe seems to be a Mediterranean male due to the softer features. It is a bit feminized I will admit but proportionally it is very European.

Anyway, the point is all races have prognathic jaws. The difference is Africans have a more fleshy and soft (neotenic) profile due to the smallness of the bony features.

No, it's not, it reduces the common differences we see in average faces in both racial groups and diminishes the value of orthodontic norms. This is a good example, notice how the African skull has strong protrusion from under the A point. The European skull has almost no protrusion, except in the chin. A side note, this is a good depiction of Dr. Mike Mew chin.

my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/

ReplyQuote
Posted : 05/01/2019 12:26 am
Abdulrahman
Reputable Member
Posted by: EddieMoney

I don't care what orthodontists say. The man posted above has no CFD unlike the Asian woman. She has lip incompetence and what looks to be a collapsed face and narrow airway. The man from Africa has no such features. You confuse fleshy features with bimax when clearly the difference in development between this:

Yea this women has big lips, not much bony protrusion, and unlike the guy you posted above she is not common. The guy on the other hand is common and has phenotypical bi-maxillary protrusion. The second lady is common, is recessed and has bi-maxillary protrusion. It's important not to confuse any of those features.

Regarding the part in bold, what exactly do you care about or base the information you are sharing on? Is it even information or just your opinion? Everything I share here is based on orthodontics and anthropology and I always try to separate between that and my own observations and views.

my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/

ReplyQuote
Posted : 05/01/2019 12:41 am
EddieMoney
Reputable Member

Abdul, we should know by now orthodontics as a profession and practice shouldn't even exist. These are the same people who believe humanity has "evolved" into having narrow palates and believe that expansion treatments can't affect adults in a meaningful way. I don't trust the orthodontic community as a whole due to the fact they exist based on a false premise. 

Anyway, back to the other points about phenotype. We both agree that prognathism is seen commonly in African populations. The difference is you seem to be using lots of illustrations of skulls where the skull replicas I use are based on actual skeletal remains. 

Regardless, I am not saying anything not factual. Africans have smaller chins. Africans have fleshy profiles. Europeans have larger chins and more bony profiles. We agree on that. Our main disagreement is whether Europeans have prognathous jaws. Realistically all human teeth should angle forward naturally. However, orthodontics aren't really practiced by tribal Africans. Comparing the level of prognathism based on this is them difficult. I posted Whites with noticeable prognathism. And yes, even with prognathism a White skull will look different than a Black one due to the presence of the heavy browridge and the stronger nose bridge as well. Both are near absent in black populations. This means the maxilla will *seemingly* project further. But this doesn't mean Africans are naturally more forward grown but rather that their more youthful skull structure makes the maxilla seem further out BY COMPARISON to the European profile due to the weaker chin, weaker nose bridge, and near absent brow ridge. 

Finally, bimaxillary protrusion is not a natural (genetic) condition. I don't see how you keep thinking it is. None of the African women you have posted look anything like the Asian one from page 3. Their faces are healthy and forward grown and they have ideal chin projection according to their phenotype. The Asian woman has a jaw that collapsed into her face. None of the people I showed have such a weak profile. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 05/01/2019 1:49 pm
EddieMoney
Reputable Member

Bimaxillary protrusion vs actual forward growth

Bimax

Notice the weak jaw projection despite teeth angulation

Compare that weak projection to this:

No lip incompetence , no weak chin despite small pogonion . The jaw projects here. With bimax the jaw is left behind and the profile is very weak. This Black woman has a strong profile on the other hand. 

Bimax = CFD

ReplyQuote
Posted : 05/01/2019 2:52 pm
Rockyp33
Reputable Member

Yeah I mean ive been mewing for a year and when i was really focused about it i felt i saw results... but i think the only way to actually get noticeable results is to put a lot more effort than what we put in and consistency is huge too. i kept changing how i mewed because id read different theories everyday so i never engrained the new habit that well it would just go back to normal I think pushing with a good amount of force maybe not hard mewing is the best way to mew. Because ive put a lot of timeinto mewing but i still notice that my tongue will drop or atleast not apply force if im focused on something else or not thinking about mewing. i think we should mew with force until it is our natural state

ReplyQuote
Posted : 05/01/2019 4:24 pm
mewchew
New Member
Posted by: Rockyp33

Yeah I mean ive been mewing for a year and when i was really focused about it i felt i saw results... but i think the only way to actually get noticeable results is to put a lot more effort than what we put in and consistency is huge too. i kept changing how i mewed because id read different theories everyday so i never engrained the new habit that well it would just go back to normal I think pushing with a good amount of force maybe not hard mewing is the best way to mew. Because ive put a lot of timeinto mewing but i still notice that my tongue will drop or atleast not apply force if im focused on something else or not thinking about mewing. i think we should mew with force until it is our natural state

If you can suction the tongue up hard on the palate then you wont have to think about it all the time. Its like suctioning a toilet plunger onto a surface and it just stays there without any effort

ReplyQuote
Posted : 05/01/2019 7:45 pm
Abdulrahman
Reputable Member
Posted by: EddieMoney

Abdul, we should know by now orthodontics as a profession and practice shouldn't even exist. These are the same people who believe humanity has "evolved" into having narrow palates and believe that expansion treatments can't affect adults in a meaningful way. I don't trust the orthodontic community as a whole due to the fact they exist based on a false premise. 

Are you serious? Did you consider who we should refer to for knowledge, before making that statement? 

Orthodontists are the source of almost everything we discuss here. Without them there would be no meaning to any terms or classifications. You would not even be able to debate CFD or any other condition without their contributions. After all where did you get this concept from? Mainly from one Orthodontist, who cites many others before him. 

And no I am not aware that Orthodontics "shouldn't even exist". Even in the hunter gatherer times (most ideal facial development) there was always 5% of the population with some form of malocclusion, be it from injury or genetics. There will always be need for Orthodontists, and today with the situation being complete revers where 95% have some form of malocclusion, they are needed more than ever. It's just that they are not providing the full solutions to this problem. 

Thankfully this is changing. There are many orthodontists making inroads in exploring the cause of malocclusion and how it relates to the airway. More importantly they are making progress in providing people with solutions. One example that you are aware of is Dr. Mahony. He moved from extracting teeth in 90% of cases to less than 10%. Here is a video of him describing bi-maxillary protrusion: 

“I hate the term bi-maxlillary protrusion. And it’s used commonly in specialist circles. Unless you are born in Chernobyl, you only have one maxilla. You have bi-dental protrusion, which means a teeth thing, or you can have bi-skeletal protrusion. Allot of your Afro Carrabin type patients, when you do their tracing, their maxilla and their mandible will be forward of that arch, because that’s their common racial type.”

“Why is division 3 common? It’s common in tongue thrust. It’s common in class 3 because the upper incisors tend to procline to compensate for the large mandible. It’s common in certain racial types, chinses, Indian/Asian, Spanish Hispanic type deals it’s common for them to be division 3.”

https://youtu.be/66k6txH66rE?t=608
  

According to him bi-maxillary protrusion, or as he prefers to call it skeletal protrusion, is a racial feature due to a protrusion in skeletal bones around the teeth in the maxilla and mandible not because of your personal theory: 

Posted by: EddieMoney

 

Regardless, I am not saying anything not factual. Africans have smaller chins. Africans have fleshy profiles. Europeans have larger chins and more bony profiles. We agree on that. Our main disagreement is whether Europeans have prognathous jaws. Realistically all human teeth should angle forward naturally. However, orthodontics aren't really practiced by tribal Africans. Comparing the level of prognathism based on this is them difficult. I posted Whites with noticeable prognathism. And yes, even with prognathism a White skull will look different than a Black one due to the presence of the heavy browridge and the stronger nose bridge as well. Both are near absent in black populations. This means the maxilla will *seemingly* project further. But this doesn't mean Africans are naturally more forward grown but rather that their more youthful skull structure makes the maxilla seem further out BY COMPARISON to the European profile due to the weaker chin, weaker nose bridge, and near absent brow ridge. 

You know I posted this picture right from the beginning for a reason, it makes the point clear.

Tell me where dose this Caucasian fighter have all those features (in bold) that make him "appear" less protrusive in the jaws? It's not that the brow ridge and chin are set so back on the African fighter, it's that his face is almost twice as forward as the Caucasian one. It's called bi-maxillary protrusion in orthodontics and the term includes, weather skeletal or dental, almost all the examples you posted.

my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/01/2019 5:06 am
varbrah liked
Abdulrahman
Reputable Member

Here is facial plane added to show clearly how each face differs and how the African face has bi-maxillary protrusion. Its taken at the nasion to avoid the very reason you try to make about the brow ridge difference. Note how the bridge and chin have no infulance on bi-maxillary protrusion.

flipped to correspond to orientation of picture above:

 

 

 

my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/01/2019 5:25 am
varbrah liked
Slinky
Trusted Member

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/01/2019 11:39 am
Abdulrahman
Reputable Member
Posted by: Slinky

Different angle makes for a big difference and also to a lesser extent lighting. In the before picture he is turning his head away from the camera which is shrinking his face. That's the trick allot of people use when presenting such before and after pictures. Its the main problem with neveragain pictures plus the horrible picture quality.

EDIT: I forgot to add one more thing about the previous picture. The before is taken with a wide angle lens making the head much larger relative to the face. 

my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/01/2019 11:52 am
Slinky liked
Slinky
Trusted Member

Orthotropics subreddit is filled with these types of images with hundreds of people falling for false results

 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/01/2019 12:04 pm
Abdulrahman
Reputable Member
Posted by: Slinky

Orthotropics subreddit is filled with these types of images with hundreds of people falling for false results

 

It's sad that people resort to those kinds of things. It's all going to backfire in the end and make the whole "mewing" topic toxic.

I forgot to add one more thing about the previous picture. The before is taken with a wide angle lens making the head much larger relative to the face.

my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/01/2019 12:45 pm
Progress
Member Moderator
Posted by: Abdulrahman

 

I forgot to add one more thing about the previous picture. The before is taken with a wide angle lens making the head much larger relative to the face.

How do you identify this? If different angles and lightning are enough to distort the appearance of the face beyond all usefulness, how can you still use the same face to determine that a different lens was used?

I wonder if this your next goalpost. By the time someone provides a comparison set with sufficiently identical angles showing cranial expansion, will you move to saying "the lens has been changed"?

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/01/2019 1:01 pm
Abdulrahman
Reputable Member
Posted by: Progress

How do you identify this? If different angles and lightning are enough to distort the appearance of the face beyond all usefulness, how can you still use the same face to determine that a different lens was used?

I wonder if this your next goalpost. By the time someone provides a comparison set with sufficiently identical angles showing cranial expansion, will you move to saying "the lens has been changed"?

That's a good question, obviously it's not always easy. If you notice I did not catch it from the start . Wide lens effect is amateur terminology for perspective distortion. When you stand very close to an object it becomes really large compared to it's surroundings.

The best example of this when taking a straight picture of a face. Stand too close and the nose will appear so pronounced and the cheeks so small and distant. Step back few meters and suddenly the nose looks less pronounced and the cheeks much wider.

In this particular picture you can see the head area and especially the ear on the right side bulging out and much larger relative to the face on the left side. It looks very unnatural and disproportional. In the second picture you can see the head area has dropped in relative size and ear is less bulging out. 

Now for the second part, there are several things that effect consistency of before and after pictures. We almost covered all of them in this topic but here is a list of them for the record.

  • lighting
  • camera position and angle
  • poor picture resolution
  • head and body position
  • weight changes
  • makeup
  • photoshoping

I hope I did not miss anything. Looking at the list it seems complicated, but if you want to perceive change, you have to reduce other variables to be able to focus on what you are trying to proof.

If you ever had a lateral cephelometric x-ray done you would know that the operator spends considerable time aligning you with the fixed position markers to insure proper x-ray. Often doctors will resend you to take another one because the quality of the alignment was not good. 

This is all simple compared to the task of showing and proving skeletal change, which is something no one was able to demonstrate before. So don't feel disappointed or discouraged when we say there is no difference or the pictures are not good enough. It's really a challenging task. 

 

my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/01/2019 10:40 pm
Progress
Member Moderator
Posted by: Abdulrahman
Posted by: Progress

How do you identify this? If different angles and lightning are enough to distort the appearance of the face beyond all usefulness, how can you still use the same face to determine that a different lens was used?

I wonder if this your next goalpost. By the time someone provides a comparison set with sufficiently identical angles showing cranial expansion, will you move to saying "the lens has been changed"?

That's a good question, obviously it's not always easy. If you notice I did not catch it from the start . Wide lens effect is amateur terminology for perspective distortion. When you stand very close to an object it becomes really large compared to it's surroundings.

The best example of this when taking a straight picture of a face. Stand too close and the nose will appear so pronounced and the cheeks so small and distant. Step back few meters and suddenly the nose looks less pronounced and the cheeks much wider.

In this particular picture you can see the head area and especially the ear on the right side bulging out and much larger relative to the face on the left side. It looks very unnatural and disproportional. In the second picture you can see the head area has dropped in relative size and ear is less bulging out. 

Now for the second part, there are several things that effect consistency of before and after pictures. We almost covered all of them in this topic but here is a list of them for the record.

  • lighting
  • camera position and angle
  • poor picture resolution
  • head and body position
  • weight changes
  • makeup
  • photoshoping

I hope I did not miss anything. Looking at the list it seems complicated, but if you want to perceive change, you have to reduce other variables to be able to focus on what you are trying to proof.

If you ever had a lateral cephelometric x-ray done you would know that the operator spends considerable time aligning you with the fixed position markers to insure proper x-ray. Often doctors will resend you to take another one because the quality of the alignment was not good. 

This is all simple compared to the task of showing and proving skeletal change, which is something no one was able to demonstrate before. So don't feel disappointed or discouraged when we say there is no difference or the pictures are not good enough. It's really a challenging task. 

 

That's a fair explanation. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the ear being disproportionately large though - are you saying it's too wide/long, or too spread out, or something else? Did you verify the disproportionality in PS or are you just going by the look? I'm playing around with the pic and it seems that both ears are between the same ratio of length in relation to the rest of their respective faces. Which is why I have to ask: are you sure the impression is not caused by the bulk of the earlobe being less visible in the left, more posteriorally angled picture and therefore appearing smaller? Or by the head in the right picture being slightly larger? Or even the shadowing?

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/01/2019 11:28 pm
Abdulrahman
Reputable Member
Posted by: Progress

That's a fair explanation. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the ear being disproportionately large though - are you saying it's too wide/long, or too spread out, or something else? Did you verify the disproportionality in PS or are you just going by the look? I'm playing around with the pic and it seems that both ears are between the same ratio of length in relation to the rest of their respective faces. Which is why I have to ask: are you sure the impression is not caused by the bulk of the earlobe being less visible in the left, more posteriorally angled picture and therefore appearing smaller? Or by the head in the right picture being slightly larger? Or even the shadowing?

Yes, too large (wide and long) compared to the nose and face in the same picture, not the ear in the other picture. He could have changed the size of the pictures to match in the ears, but the noses and faces do not match in size. Try matching the noses in both pictures and you will find the nose in the before picture is smaller by about 20%. This is most likely because he was holding the phone a little closer to his face while taking the before picture.

Now the difference in the ear lobes you mention is cased by the turn in the head. When he is turning his face away from the camera in the before picture the ear lobes surface area become smaller. It's hard to decipher exactly whats happening in those pictures, except for sure that they are clearly not matching in angle.

my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/

ReplyQuote
Posted : 07/01/2019 6:15 am
Slinky
Trusted Member

what about this one?

https://imgur.com/gallery/fiR2uYa

found on reddit

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/02/2019 1:08 am
GreekGodBrody
Trusted Member

Perhaps we should come up with a guide to take before and after professional photos and measurements.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/02/2019 2:24 am
AlphaMinus
Estimable Member
Posted by: Abdulrahman
Posted by: Slinky

Orthotropics subreddit is filled with these types of images with hundreds of people falling for false results

 

It's sad that people resort to those kinds of things. It's all going to backfire in the end and make the whole "mewing" topic toxic.

 

I totally agree and it's a shame. The wild claims and dubious before/after photos discredit the whole subject and make it sound "kooky." 

It almost reminds me of when the whole goji berry craze took off 10-12 years ago. If you Googled the topic, almost every site that came up was a scam artist selling hugely overpriced goji juice alongside the most outrageously false claims, for e.g. that people living in the Himalayas live to the age of 150 because of the polysaccharides in the berries. Even blogs that weren't selling anything were making similar claims. A chief characteristic of this kind of bunkum is that legitimate scientific concepts and terms are bandied about, quite freely and clumsily, which lend an almost respectable air to the nonsense. Gullible people hear scientific terms and immediately assume that the person knows what they're talking about. 

In my example of goji berries, the wild claims were a shame because they were making the berries sound like a complete and utter scam when in actual fact they are very healthy and a useful addition to anyone's diet. They just not a miracle cure or a way to live to 150. 

Same with the whole subject of mewing. Loads of good reasons to adopt tongue posture. Lots of useful info and research going on. Unfortunately drowned out by a sea of people making ridiculous claims and faking "progress" photos.  

ReplyQuote
Posted : 06/02/2019 10:15 am
Slinky
Trusted Member

Dr Mike in his latest video https://youtu.be/uwnYPeC7nK4 (12:07) provided a new adult before and after. Seems like clear facial upswing. He could've used some appliances but still pretty impressive results

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/02/2019 11:25 pm
Slinky
Trusted Member

ReplyQuote
Posted : 07/03/2019 10:07 pm
auxiliary
Estimable Member
Posted by: Abdulrahman

I have been arguing for a while that people should make an impression cast of their teeth before starting mewing and after 6 months just to confirm they are getting anything. 

Technically moving teeth is the simplest and easiest form of change you can have from mewing. The alveolar ridge is very responsive to pressure. Yet, aside from maybe @TGW, no body has done this.

That's unfortunate because it's relatively easy to make casts, and sharing them will not compromise the user's identity. Instead all we get are claims of such and such expansion.

The thing is I don't doubt that such people truly believe they are getting such changes, it's just that I doubt reality matches their claims, because people tend to overestimate and it's hard to measure inter molar width.

Just to give you an example, every month I saw my orthodontist I asked him how much expansion I had and he would look and say plenty. I kept pressing him for a figure so he used a drawing compass and placed it on the center of my first upper molars in an identifiable depression. The he measured that distance and compared it with the cast he took before treatment and came up with 3mm expansion in the inter molar width.

He used a drawing compass because he could not get his small caliber inside my mouth. I don't know how people here say they are making precises measurements with a caliber inside their mouth.

Anyway, shortly after when the 6 month mark approached he made for me a cast and to my unpleasant surprise my expansion was a meager 1.5mm, exactly half!

Just goes to show that even a professional can overestimate such measurement if not done precisely. Of course forum users have come up with all kinds of creative ways to estimate inter molar width, but when measuring something as precises, there is no substitute for hard evidence such as a cast. 

I've moved teeth 100%. [Rude Language or Insults are not tolerated] if you just mew yourself you'll get it as well. My upper teeth have become rounder and more tilted outwards, very slightly though. The flesh became very round though. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 08/03/2019 6:26 pm
Tomaazo
New Member

I have seen huge results in8 months...

ReplyQuote
Posted : 21/03/2019 1:28 pm
Page 4 / 4