• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Alyssa Luck

Alyssa Luck

  • About Me
  • Deep Dives
  • The IBD Index
  • Functional Orthodontics
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Contact Me
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Can Chewing on One Side Cause Facial Asymmetry?

Alyssa Luck · Mar 18, 2021 · 4 Comments

Hi! I recorded a video (below) musing on this topic, and thought I’d give you all a text version as well, both because I’m not very concise on video and so you can see the alien face pics a bit better (ha).

I recently tried one of those “face symmetry” apps where it takes a picture of your face and shows you what it would look like if it were perfectly symmetrical, either using the right or the left side. This really highlights any facial asymmetries you might have, and I found my results super interesting (for a few reasons), so wanted to share!

Yes, I do look like an alien in both, but it’s pretty clear that the right half of my face is better developed than the left. And you’ve probably heard me mention before that historically, I’ve chewed almost exclusively on the right side.

Left is the left half of my face, right is the right half of my face. What I found crazy is that not only is my jawline/occipital area better developed on the right, which I would’ve expected, but my nose is smaller and lips are fuller as well! I suppose the lips thing makes sense, because I’m using those muscles more. Not sure about the nose thing…maybe my nose is just slightly crooked so the left half gets more of it! Also, I can only wink my left eye, not my right…no idea what that means, if anything.

On the surface, the analysis here seems pretty clear: my face developed better on the side that I chew on. This fits well with the entire theory behind mewing and the like, which is essentially that form follows function, and changing muscle habits and patterns will change the form of one’s face.

But upon further reflection, this also begs the question: why have I always chewed on the right side? The answer is because my molars didn’t touch on the left. Okay, then the question again is: why?

Eventually I’d like to look into this question a bit more systematically in an attempt to actually answer it, but for now, I’d venture a guess that like many questions related to cause and effect, the directionality isn’t perfectly clear and distinct. Once a process is set in motion, effects become causes themselves, and before long it can become a vicious cycle.

In my case, I’d wager that something in my genetics, epigenetics, or early environment resulted in poorer development of the left side of my face. I think the argument is strong for a genetic component, considering many of the teeth on my left side are noticeably smaller than the corresponding teeth on the right.

That developmental asymmetry, even if it was slight, probably lead to differences in how I used my face/jaw early on as a baby/child, and those asymmetrical habits probably further affected development in an asymmetrical way.

And now here I am at 27 years of age trying my best to chew on the left side of my mouth more often! Because in addition to the questions we can ask about causes, I think it’s also interesting (and far more practical) to consider whether (or to what extent) asymmetries in form can be corrected over time by correcting asymmetries in function.

Again, I’m sure there’s data and anecdotes out there about this (and please share below if you have any!), but in my case, I think it will be interesting simply to do my best to chew more evenly and then repeat this face symmetry photo exercise, perhaps in a year or so. So stay tuned (and keep me honest – if you’re reading this in 2022, remind me to take another pic and share with you guys!).

Related

Functional Orthodontics & Orthotropics

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. John H Brown says

    March 25, 2021 at 9:02 am

    I love your videos you are so cool and sweet can’t wait to see your smile after your braces journey is complete

    Reply
    • Alyssa Luck says

      March 25, 2021 at 12:22 pm

      That’s very sweet, thank you John!

      Reply
  2. Bronwynne says

    August 2, 2021 at 7:09 pm

    Have you spoken to a orofacial myofunctional therapist? We work on symmetry and balance of the oral & facial muscles, may be something to consider.

    Reply
    • Alyssa Luck says

      August 5, 2021 at 11:03 am

      Hi Bronwynne! My dentist who’s doing the AGGA/CAB for me has gone over some myofunctional therapy tongue/face exercises with me, but I’ve never consulted with a dedicated orofacial myofunctional therapist. It’s a good idea, and I will certainly consider it! Thank you!

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

 

Hi! I’m Alyssa. This website is where I house all of my musings and investigations and pet research projects – topics ranging from autoimmune disease to nutrition to adult palate expansion to psychology and nervous system therapy. I hope you enjoy this awkwardly cropped poor resolution photo of me playing mini golf. If you want to know more about me, click here!

Recent Comments

  • Alyssa Luck on Polyvagal Theory: A Critical Appraisal
  • Alyssa Luck on Can L-Glutamine Cause Brain Fog? {Monday Musings}
  • Tray on Can L-Glutamine Cause Brain Fog? {Monday Musings}
  • Oldmike on Ketone Supplements for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease
  • Alyssa Luck on Ketone Supplements for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease

alyssa.luck

alyssa.luck
Photo dump from the last year. Thanks to everyone Photo dump from the last year. Thanks to everyone who made 28 the best yet - excited for 29🥰

(PS. In case anyone wants to know what it’s like in my head, I was going to write something like “year 28” or “my 28th year” but then I realized that the year between your 28th and 29th birthdays is not your 28th year of life, it’s your 29th year. I am turning 29 because I have been alive for 29 years. So then I had a whole thing about how to word it without being inaccurate and ended up going with what you see above which is vague and weird but the point is it was a good year and I love all the people in my life dearly)
Biology of Belief (2005) was written by Bruce Lipt Biology of Belief (2005) was written by Bruce Lipton, who earned a PhD in developmental biology in 1971 and was an anatomy professor and academic researcher in the 70s and 80s. Despite the book's presentation and Lipton's background, this is not a science book. It is an exposition of an ideology, supported by haphazard and poorly contextualized nuggets of evidence, rhetorical leaps, and a mind-boggling overuse of analogies. 

The book largely failed to deliver on its promised content. What it does is argue for the primacy of the environment over DNA in controlling life; propose that the cell membrane rather than the nucleus is the "brain" of the cell; invoke quantum physics to explain why modern medicine fails; explain that our behavior is largely controlled by our subconscious mind; inform parents that they therefore have a great deal of control over the destiny of their children; and conclude that humans must become nonviolent protectors of the environment and of humanity because Everything Is Connected.

It’s not that these points aren’t relevant to the topic at hand - they are. But they were not connected in a coherent way that would explain how “belief” actually works (like…biologically), and the treatment of scientific concepts throughout was careless, or perhaps disingenuous.

I think he's correct about many things, some of them being common knowledge. For instance, the "new" science of epigenetics is now old news, as is the critical role of parenting and early environment in shaping a child’s future. But however important these and attendant concepts may be, the book did not do a good job explaining, supporting, or connecting them. 

As far as practical guidance, he refers the reader to a list of resources on his website, which is fine, but I expected some scientific insight into how/why those modalities work. None was given. 

On the plus side, the book was quite thought-provoking, and I came away with loads of references and topics to follow up on. My favorite line? "There cannot be exceptions to a theory; exceptions simply mean that a theory is not fully correct."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (section 382) Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (section 382), as quoted in the introduction to Thus Spoke Zarathustra because I like the translation better.
This paper totally changed the way I think about e This paper totally changed the way I think about early nervous system development and the relationship between physiology and sociality. 

The authors propose that newborn babies are not inherently social, and have just one goal in life: physiological homeostasis. I.e. staying alive. This means nutrients, warmth, and regulation of breath and heart rate, i.e. autonomic arousal (it’s well-accepted that newborns sync their breathing and heart rate with caregivers through skin to skin contact). 

All these things are traditionally provided by a loving caregiver. So what the baby experiences during the first weeks of life, over and over, is a shift from physiological perturbation to homeostasis (a highly rewarding event inherently) REPEATEDLY PAIRED with things like the sound of a caregiver’s voice and seeing their face. Thus, over time, the face/voice stimuli become rewarding as well. 

The authors argue that THIS is the beginning of humans’ wiring for sociality, and may explain why loving social interactions can have such a profound regulating effect on physiology throughout life: because the brain was trained for it at an early age. 

This framework holds all kinds of fascinating implications for what happens if that initial “training” isn’t so ideal. What if the return to nutritional homeostasis via feeding is paired with negative expressions and vocalizations rather than loving ones, perhaps as could occur with PPD? What happens if the caregiver has poor autonomic regulation, such that social stimuli become paired with cardiorespiratory overexcitement in the baby? Could that have potential for influencing later introversion vs extroversion? (Because if social interaction is paired with autonomic overexcitement, that could lead to social interaction literally being more energetically draining, which is what introverts experience. Thoughts?)

For my energy metabolism enthusiasts: Table 1 in the paper draws a link between metabolic rate and sociality across species. Swipe for a screenshot. 

Anyway, check out the paper! It’s free, just google “growing a social brain pdf.”
I’ll be under general anesthesia in a couple day I’ll be under general anesthesia in a couple days to have two tooth implants placed, and I think I’ll take the opportunity to have a little heart-to-heart with my subconscious mind. A bit of medically-assisted self-hypnosis, if you will. 

I randomly stumbled upon these papers a couple months ago - an RCT showing reduced post-op pain in patients who listened to recorded positive messages while under general anesthesia, plus a post-hoc analysis of the same data that found reduced post-op nausea and vomiting in a subset of high-risk patients. 

The full review paper from the first slide is unfortunately in German, but it has long been recognized that even when unconscious, the patient is listening (for better or for worse). 

It boggles my mind that it isn’t standard of care to have patients listen to recordings like this while under sedation, considering that almost nothing could be easier, safer, or cheaper, and we have at least some evidence of significant efficacy. I mean c’mon, what more could you want from an intervention? 

(Yeah, I know. Profit. If anyone still thinks that our medical system operates with patient well-being as the foremost goal, you’re deluding yourself.)

“There should be a fundamental change in the way patients are treated in the operating room and intensive care unit, and background noise and careless conversations should be eliminated.”

“Perhaps it is now time to finally heed this call and to use communication with unconscious patients that goes beyond the most necessary announcement of interventions and is therapeutically effective through positive suggestions. When in doubt, assume that the patient is listening.”
If you've seen "vagus nerve exercises" that have y If you've seen "vagus nerve exercises" that have you moving your eyes or tilting your head, you've probably encountered the work of Stanley Rosenberg. The exercises he created and introduced in his 2017 book now appear in instructional videos all over the internet. 
 
The book itself has much to recommend it: it's accessible, it's practical, it's inspiring. But it has one major flaw: the solid practical and informational content regarding the cranial nerves is framed in terms of the scientifically dubious polyvagal theory. 
 
I particularly enjoyed the book as an introduction to the therapeutic arena of bodywork, of which Rosenberg is a skilled practitioner. His book is full of case reports that demonstrate how immensely powerful extremely subtle movements and physical manipulations can be. These do need to be kept in perspective: it's a small sample size of the most remarkable cases, and the results were achieved within the supportive clinical environment of a skilled practitioner. You can tell from his descriptions how refined his technique is. But nevertheless, it was a paradigm-shifting read for me, and the exercises give you something concrete to play around with. 
 
The book also brought the cranial nerves and the concept of “social engagement” to the fore as arbiters of health. Rosenberg has a solid background in cranial nerve anatomy and shares many interesting tidbits and considerations that you don’t typically hear; for instance, the potential impact of dental and orthodontic work on cranial nerve function.
 
So, is it worth reading? If any of the above piques your interest, go for it! Just read my post on polyvagal theory first – you can use the book to practice separating the wheat (solid informational content) from the chaff (pseudoscientific framing). If nothing else, the book is a nice reminder that genuine healers who get lasting results for their patients do exist.

But if you just want to try the exercises, you can easily find them all on YouTube. 

“You learn techniques to understand principles. When you understand the principles, you will create your own techniques.” -Stanley Rosenberg
Load More Follow on Instagram

Recent Posts

  • Polyvagal Theory: A Critical Appraisal
  • Lymphatic Support for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease
  • Heart Rate Variability 101: What It Is, How It’s Measured, and Controversies in the Literature
  • Autonomic Nervous System 101: Anatomy and Physiology
  • Vitamin A Detox Diet for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease

Categories

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Monochrome Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in