For those who don't know, the Mew indicator line is a great tool to measure your level of recession, and also to measure your progress.
Basically, you measure from the bottom of your upper incisors to the furthest tip of your nose in millimeters. As you can see, adult male ideal scores are from 38-44 mm while females are 36-42 mm (to accommodate smaller female dentition).
This accurately measures how much recession is present and how much you need to advance. Best way to do this is to hold the ruler next to your teeth, and take a picture.
?cb=1390166327
Let's measure how recessed we are! Lol
My score is...50mm. Raging! 6-12mm of advancement needed to get to normal. 😓
Because my incisors are retroclined (tipped backwards by orthodontist), I have to use the different method seen here:
For those who don't know, the Mew indicator line is a great tool to measure your level of recession, and also to measure your progress.
What is your Mew indicator line score?
I had no idea this was a thing! Thanks for posting it @eddiemoney.
Rudimentary attempts at this say I'm hovering around 50mm too i.e I didn't take a picture, I just looked sideways in the mirror.
Have any of you measured your Mew indicator line score before you started mewing to track progress? If so, any changes?
I wish I did.
The Orthotropics FB page says Scandinavians will have greater average numbers (maybe nose length?) and East Asians have smaller numbers. But seems like many of us are hovering around 50mm.
I'm 46mm, female, and unfortunately haven't been measuring since I began mewing in August 2017, though I doubt it's changed much. I'm very curious to see if it goes down within a year!
Just a small note, the second illustration states the ideal indicator line for adults incorrectly as 40-44mm, it should be 36-40mm. I confirmed this in a discussion with Dr. John Mew. Mike is planning to make a video about measuring this just like he did for the inter molar width.
I'm 46mm, female, and unfortunately haven't been measuring since I began mewing in August 2017, though I doubt it's changed much. I'm very curious to see if it goes down within a year!
Did your incisor teeth position or angulation change at all? If not probably its still the same. Unaided with devices the first year shows little progress usually.
I did a quick and dirty measurement in the mirror, I'm around 52mm. That is despite some (slight) bimaxillary protrusion. Can only image how far back my maxilla really is.
How does a short nose, long philtrum affect the measurement? I would imagine a short nose would result in higher numbers, and could lead someone to believe they're recessed while they're actually not?
I'm going to keep a log for this. I'm thinking of weekly or biweekly measurements. This is far more than needed, as progress would obviously be very slow, but more measurements help compensate for inaccuracy in measurements.
I did a quick and dirty measurement in the mirror, I'm around 52mm. That is despite some (slight) bimaxillary protrusion. Can only image how far back my maxilla really is.
How does a short nose, long philtrum affect the measurement? I would imagine a short nose would result in higher numbers, and could lead someone to believe they're recessed while they're actually not?
I'm going to keep a log for this. I'm thinking of weekly or biweekly measurements. This is far more than needed, as progress would obviously be very slow, but more measurements help compensate for inaccuracy in measurements.
I believe these measurements are based on varying nose shapes and sizes. So in other words, 52 mm is recessed regardless of whether the nose is short or not. Why? Consider that a short nose may be low in vertical height but it would also be short in horizontal length (distance from top of upper lip to furthest point out). It evens out because of that .
I have also read that when bimax is present, the maxilla is recessed. This means that if the maxilla was in a proper position, the teeth wouldn't be able to protrude outwards because the bite would align properly due to an adequate intermolar width and enough room for the tongue that would prevent teeth flaring. In other words, bimax is seen in recessed people because of the fact their tongue doesn't have enough room in their palate.
Everyone I have seen with bimax has their incisors far away from their nose. The acute nasolabial angle doesn't tell the whole story.
What I find so ridiculous is that the cost of many devices that would incline teeth outward are more expensive than orthodontic treatment itself. I paid $3000 USD for my ortho treatment and that involved way more than simply changing angularity of teeth. When I see prices like $7,000 to $10,000 for appliances that move teeth out I can't believe it at all.
@Abdulrahman I am willing to bet it only a tiny percentage of people are in the 36-40mm range based on just looking at people's profiles.
I'm 46mm, female, and unfortunately haven't been measuring since I began mewing in August 2017, though I doubt it's changed much. I'm very curious to see if it goes down within a year!
Did your incisor teeth position or angulation change at all? If not probably its still the same. Unaided with devices the first year shows little progress usually.
@abdulrahman, my incisors haven't changed at all, but it's possible that might begin now that I've reached a new posture. My molars are resting in what feels to be a more aligned way, and my lower incisors are now pressing against my upper incisors, when before there was maybe a 1-2mm overbite. My upper teeth still cover at least half of my lower teeth, but I don't remember my bite ever feeling this way before.
It's a relief to hear that the 1st year doesn't yield much. I've seen a lot of changes, but intermolar width and maxillary forward growth aren't part of it.
I think my incisors have changed but that may be me just imagining. What I do know is that forward movement has occurred simply because my chin projects more in the Frankfurt plane. It has advanced definitely I am just not sure by how much.
Now this forward movement may not even be maxillary and may just be sliding forward movement of the mandible due to increased intermolar width . More than likely that has changed BUT I also think some maxillary may have happened due to less gum exposure in the front and more gum exposure on the sides. Looking at a pic of me from 7 years ago I see the gumline above my upper premolars (bicuspids) more exposed now compared to then indicating slight counterclockwise rotation
After working out how to accurately measure, I've decided my mew indicator line is about 45mm. My maxilla doesn't have much vertical excess, but it is recessed.
Posted by: Apollo
Posted by: EddieMoney
Posted by: Apollo
I took a photo like this one to make the measurement easier to read and for future comparison. Mine is around 43mm.
How did you figure where to put that other red line?the one that intersects the mm reading
This is just a slide I found on google images, so I didn't draw the lines, but I assume they think that represents the most anterior point of the nose and then extrapolated that out to the ruler. This is why I said I struggle to get a consistent reading when we talked about the mew indicator line in another thread
Posted by: Apollo
Posted by: EddieMoney
What is your mew indicator line measure?
I just tried to measure and it looks to be about 43mm, but this isn't something I keep track of because I always struggle to decide what is the most anterior point on the tip of my nose.
I found it helpful to take a picture myself rather than trying to get a consistent reading while looking in a mirror.
These are helpful instructions for measuring the mew indicator line! I suspect mine might be a millimeter or two higher than what I had reported because I was gently pressing the ruler into my nose. I would now conservatively estimate mine at about 45mm.
This is the distance from the tip of the nose to the incisal edge of the lowest upper central incisor (Fig. IV/15). The tip of the nose is defined as the furthest point from the Tragus of the ear... One caution is necessary when the maxilla is very retruded; the ruler must not be pressed against the nose but placed at a tangent to it and the line from the Tragus extended to where both lines meet figure IV/19). If desired the line can be measured on a lateral skull x-ray but do not forget to allow for enlargement. Clearly this measurement is no more than an ‘indication’, nevertheless it is surprisingly accurate. This unlikely measurement is now used to assess maxillary position throughout the world and is especially helpful for epidemiological studies where X-rays may not be possible. It provides an approximate guide of the relationship of the mid-face and the frontal bone, representing the ‘fullness.’
Here's an interesting comparison which helps visualize how the mew indicator line relates to an ideal profile as compared to a patient with obstructive sleep apnea:
Here's an interesting comparison which helps visualize how the mew indicator line relates to an ideal profile as compared to a patient with obstructive sleep apnea:
@Apollo The man looks like he has enlarged buccinators, but why does it look like the woman does too? She probably just has a higher body fat percentage, but sometimes I still can't tell the difference between 'full' cheeks and buccinator hypertrophy. Some orthotropic cases seem to produce really round looking cheeks and I thought it looked weird, but maybe I was conditioned to think having hollow cheeks was the goal for everyone. Obviously, women have more body fat, but is there a visual cue besides looking at the other features of a profile and comparing jaw positions to discern if someone has large buccinators?
I didn't see those other photos of her before posting, now it's easy to see she doesn't have large buccinators. Her teeth look kind of uncomfortably stacked on top of each other, but yeah, great maxilla. My rat face is jealous.
I didn't see those other photos of her before posting, now it's easy to see she doesn't have large buccinators. Her teeth look kind of uncomfortably stacked on top of each other, but yeah, great maxilla. My rat face is jealous.
She could probably benefit from slight expansion. Just because she has forward growth doesn't mean other factors can't also be changed for the better IMO
EddieMoney what method are you using to attempt to bring the retroclined incisors forward?
At the moment I am more concentrating on making sure my posterior third is engaged. The reason for that as opposed to any incisors proclination method is because when I finally moved my tongue to the incisive papilla when it could fit on the entire palate, my lower third disengaged.
Now I am concentrating on that more than anything incisor related because I want to counterclockwise rotate the maxilla, which is truly the measure of progress with a downward grown face as opposed to incisor inclination. Maybe if I see results this way I will either continue with tongue alone or see if a device like ALF could help. For now I am simply retraining myself to engage the posterior third as I am not too worried about the alveolar ridge at the moment.
Here's my question... Mew has said that even those who we see today who are very attractive aren't perfect, and that there is always more room to expand.
Does this mean that this "38 to 44 mm" is just the point at which you wouldn't be considered recessed? Surely this still isn't the ideal, and if it is, I'm sure there are other metrics worth looking at than just this.
Here's my question... Mew has said that even those who we see today who are very attractive aren't perfect, and that there is always more room to expand.
Does this mean that this "38 to 44 mm" is just the point at which you wouldn't be considered recessed? Surely this still isn't the ideal, and if it is, I'm sure there are other metrics worth looking at than just this.
Intermolar width for one but Mew says the ideal is 36-40mm.
Just to be sure, the further away you are from the ideal range (38-44 mm for men), the more recessed your maxilla is? Am I right?
Greater than 44 mm: recessed
Less than 38 mm: not applicable?
Correct, though it is important to note that the vertical growth indicator is mainly for measuring the alveolar ridge relative to the maxilla. Also, the measurement is not very accurate, nose shapes and sizes can effect the measurement quite a bit.
Just to be sure, the further away you are from the ideal range (38-44 mm for men), the more recessed your maxilla is? Am I right?
Greater than 44 mm: recessed
Less than 38 mm: not applicable?
Correct, though it is important to note that the vertical growth indicator is mainly for measuring the alveolar ridge relative to the maxilla. Also, the measurement is not very accurate, nose shapes and sizes can effect the measurement quite a bit.
Yeah, I was thinking about that. Surely the length on one's nose influences the measurement.
So according to people in this thread, the ideal for a male is 36mm to 40mm. I was wondering, is this a modern aesthetic ideal or an ancestral ideal? I.e: is the expectation that most males at 38mm would become better looking if they achieved 36mm, or is it the same situation as with inter-molar width where you start becoming too weird looking for the trends of our era if you get too close to the ancestral ideal? It is a bit of a vapid question but I would like to know how far I am from my ideal aesthetics-wise, I have 42mm atm.
So according to people in this thread, the ideal for a male is 36mm to 40mm. I was wondering, is this a modern aesthetic ideal or an ancestral ideal? I.e: is the expectation that most males at 38mm would become better looking if they achieved 36mm, or is it the same situation as with inter-molar width where you start becoming too weird looking for the trends of our era if you get too close to the ancestral ideal? It is a bit of a vapid question but I would like to know how far I am from my ideal aesthetics-wise, I have 42mm atm.
It isn't based around aesthetics but function. The higher your maxilla, the better your airway functions. Of course it comes with a shorter face and a stronger jaw but none of these things guarantee someone will be attractive facially. What is good about a short Mew line is that your smile looks more pleasing.
However any increase in maxillary height (aka a decrease in Mew line) will make anyone look better facially. Hello less gum exposure and goodbye long face. And yes it is based on an ancestral ideal that is still found across the world in "primitive" tribes. And these people's facial aesthetics are ahead of ours by far. Short maxilla = younger face, higher fWHR, shorter face, stronger jaw. It makes you look both younger and with better bone development. Aka the way humans are supposed to look. Also these "ancestral" measurements belong to modern humans. Modern humans with short Mew lines may look a bit "primitive" however. It is true that throughout history short faced people were considered primitive. Possibly because of how rare a short Mew line is.
The Orthotropics FB page says Scandinavians will have greater average numbers (maybe nose length?) and East Asians have smaller numbers. But seems like many of us are hovering around 50mm.
A 1-2 mm difference it seems. Not very pronounced.
Nose shape I find may affect this as seen from this depiction.
Note the transition from soft tissue promince (African) to bony prominence (European). So on average a West African woman will have a shorter facial height than a European woman, with East Asians somewhere in the middle. Note this isn't universal in all cases, but I find it true most of the time.
This means a slightly higher Mew line for a European descended person may not be as bad, as the bony nasal prominence of a European profile will result in naturally higher Mew lines. I see it myself now.
Honestly I put way less stock in this measurement now as I am a guy. Short faces on men look either infantile or underdeveloped. If they appear infantile but face ratios are good, he is a pretty boy. If not and has poor midface support, he looks odd (think Quentin Tarantino who case an abnormally short face but a sunken midface).
Face too long = you look either old, tired, or both.
Face too short = you look deformed or pug faced
Happy middle exists. Mew lines are not as significant as I once thought. You can have a short face but if your midface ratio is long (think David Schwimmer) your facial height is irrelevant.
Vertical growth isn't as important as midface ratio anyway. See below.
Okay, I realized I was already a bit late in measuring certain aspects of my skull despite mewing for nearly two months so I went ahead and measured...
Got a 50mm score.
And I also have retroclined maxillary incisors thanks to orthodontics. You also had a gummy smile, right Eddie? I guess old you (from the time of your original post) and current me share quite a lot than I first thought.
The distance between the narrowest point between the inside outlines of my first molars is 40mm, which should be okay according to Mike Mew. I also have a Mew line of 40mm, which should be great according to you. The fwHR is around 1,9. Why my jawline barely existent? I have low body-fat in this picture as well(~13%).
I think my face looks a bit recessed, even with good mew line.
After all this time mewing and chewing a lot, I'd say my profile barely improved, though I've experienced amazing improvement in breathing. My nose isn't runny anymore, I can sleep with my mouth closed, my mouth doesn't stink, I can even keep breathing through nose during moderate exercise.
I don't think I necessarily have bad facial proportions, I think there's something off in the position of my hyoid.
I'm not tilting my head back, that's just how my ears are. I'm not European, I'd say closest to Mongolian.
I'm 20, I've been mewing now for 2 years. Though I've gotten impressive improvements in breathing, I haven't noticed any profile improvement. Maybe slightly better dorsal hump. Proper chewing has given me good improvement in fwHr, but it didn't really change much.
My routine has been everything I've tried, full tongue, only the tip. In the end I just kept doing the routine that improved my breathing the most, by pushing my tongue forward using the muscle under my tongue and then pulling it upwards using the muscle connecting to the tongue and the back of the palate.
The thing is this actually doesn't rotate the maxilla, it only rotates the palate. The palate can change it's location without affecting maxilla much. This is how I understand why my breathing improved by a ton, while profile barely changed.
I also think the whole theory on mewing is right now completely wrong, if you just look at the face itself, it's impossible for the front of the maxilla to move upwards without misaligning teeth. I think the best theory we have is that the back of the maxilla falls downwards instead.
It's also impossible to use your tongue to push upwards, you're actually pulling the tongue upwards with muscles connecting to the palate and the head bones.
Also if you'd actually push your palate upwards, you'd either worsen your breathing or push your bones into your brain, makes no sense at all.
I also think the whole theory on mewing is right now completely wrong, if you just look at the face itself, it's impossible for the front of the maxilla to move upwards without misaligning teeth. I think the best theory we have is that the back of the maxilla falls downwards instead.
It's also impossible to use your tongue to push upwards, you're actually pulling the tongue upwards with muscles connecting to the palate and the head bones.
Also if you'd actually push your palate upwards, you'd either worsen your breathing or push your bones into your brain, makes no sense at all.
Yes, I have made great improvements in width of my face with barely any intermolar width change and maybe slight forward movement of alveolar ridge (that was in reverse to my ortho treatment anyway). But are my teeth any closer to my nose? By very little. Yet my face has improved a lot.
I don't really ascribe to the Mew line theory anymore because it implies short faced people will always have better development, but as many here know with short faces, it is more complicated than that.
I knew a woman who probably had a Mew line in the mid 30s. Her chin and jaw were very projecting and her profile strong. Almost too strong. She had an anvil face with weak lips and her skull looked drastically narrow. Clearly she lacked width but in her case she also lacked length. Lengthening her face would have softened her profile and given her less of an anvil look. She needed clockwise mandible and maxillary rotation. Her forward growth was strong but it was the only growth she had. Her skull didn't grow downwards or outwards and as a result her face looked an odd combination of both too old and too young at the same time. This lack of vertical growth also made her forehead look too large in proportion to her whole face.
Yeah you're wrong. My eyes are actually looking straight ahead, though i did remove them so you can't see that. My ears are just really rotated, maybe from recession.
It seems to me that your bone structure is actually decent, and it is a lack of soft-tissue development that presents the most immediate avenue for improvement. The skin underneath your mandible appears slack, which possibly accounts for why your jawline doesn't look very sharp. Can you raise your hyoid along with the posterior of your tongue without cutting off the airway?
Yeah you're wrong. My eyes are actually looking straight ahead, though i did remove them so you can't see that. My ears are just really rotated, maybe from recession.
Your eyes can look straight ahead from a variety of angles, doesn't mean your head isn't tilted. And I don't think ears rotate from maxillary recession, it doesn't make sense to me.
And nope, I'm not wrong.
You didn't answer any of my questions, by the way.
It seems to me that your bone structure is actually decent, and it is a lack of soft-tissue development that presents the most immediate avenue for improvement. The skin underneath your mandible appears slack, which possibly accounts for why your jawline doesn't look very sharp. Can you raise your hyoid along with the posterior of your tongue without cutting off the airway?
Yeah if I do this I do have a jawline, but it's obviously unnatural as fuck?
Yeah you're wrong. My eyes are actually looking straight ahead, though i did remove them so you can't see that. My ears are just really rotated, maybe from recession.
Your eyes can look straight ahead from a variety of angles, doesn't mean your head isn't tilted. And I don't think ears rotate from maxillary recession, it doesn't make sense to me.
And nope, I'm not wrong.
You didn't answer any of my questions, by the way.
Sleeping position either on stomach or side, yeah I did chin tucks, I do both soft and hard mewing.
The reason I think is wrong is in the picture my eyes are exactly in the middle of my vision. So I'm actually looking straight ahead. I've made sure before posting the picture to focus on the middle of the range of motion of my eyes and then move my head to look straight ahead.
Yeah you're wrong. My eyes are actually looking straight ahead, though i did remove them so you can't see that. My ears are just really rotated, maybe from recession.
Your eyes can look straight ahead from a variety of angles, doesn't mean your head isn't tilted. And I don't think ears rotate from maxillary recession, it doesn't make sense to me.
And nope, I'm not wrong.
You didn't answer any of my questions, by the way.
Sleeping position either on stomach or side, yeah I did chin tucks, I do both soft and hard mewing.
The reason I think is wrong is in the picture my eyes are exactly in the middle of my vision. So I'm actually looking straight ahead. I've made sure before posting the picture to focus on the middle of the range of motion of my eyes and then move my head to look straight ahead.
You need to have your head level to the ground, that's all there is to it. I'm not saying you did it (tilting) on purpose, just that it needs to be taken into consideration when taking progress pics.
Yeah you're wrong. My eyes are actually looking straight ahead, though i did remove them so you can't see that. My ears are just really rotated, maybe from recession.
Your eyes can look straight ahead from a variety of angles, doesn't mean your head isn't tilted. And I don't think ears rotate from maxillary recession, it doesn't make sense to me.
And nope, I'm not wrong.
You didn't answer any of my questions, by the way.
Sleeping position either on stomach or side, yeah I did chin tucks, I do both soft and hard mewing.
The reason I think is wrong is in the picture my eyes are exactly in the middle of my vision. So I'm actually looking straight ahead. I've made sure before posting the picture to focus on the middle of the range of motion of my eyes and then move my head to look straight ahead.
You need to have your head level to the ground, that's all there is to it. I'm not saying you did it (tilting) on purpose, just that it needs to be taken into consideration when taking progress pics.
Yeah if I do this I do have a jawline, but it's obviously unnatural as [Rude Language or Insults are not tolerated]?
If you employ tongue suction and form a vacuum in your mouth, it should help to keep everything elevated. If you're finding it unnatural, it may just be because you're not used to it.
I don't know what to think of the mew line indicator because I measured mine last night and as a 34 year old male mine is 45mm despite the fact that I had severe crowding the point where my two canines looked like vampire fangs. Does this mean that the problem is more a lack of jaw width rather than down and backwards growth? I always have assumed that all dimensions of growth were interrelated.
I don't know what to think of the mew line indicator because I measured mine last night and as a 34 year old male mine is 45mm despite the fact that I had severe crowding the point where my two canines looked like vampire fangs. Does this mean that the problem is more a lack of jaw width rather than down and backwards growth? I always have assumed that all dimensions of growth were interrelated.
It's possible to be lacking in one mode of growth and have others present. For example, I personally have my left side decently grown downwards but my right side is lacking. My right side has more width however and my ogee curve is pronounced on that side. My left side has more forward growth too since when I brush behind my left wisdom tooth I have more room for the brush than on the right.
It's possible to also have a low Mew line and crowding simply because the maxilla is vertically short. But the maxilla being vertically short doesn't mean it has to be wide.
This guy has a vertically short maxilla that is also narrow. So he ends up with a short face/weak lower third but his midface is still long. His maxilla didn't grow downward nor forward nor sideways, but it is still vertically short.
Interesting to see how low his under-eye bags sit despite his eyes sitting high up in the orbit, from this I imagine his orbital bones are more oval shaped and long than compact circles.
The idea that the skull narrows and elongates with poor posture seems very obvious here. like it's all stretched down. He has a thin top lip which indicates to me that he speaks with his chin too, from the side his bottom lip probably comes forward from his top.
He gets away with it all though with good symmetry and nice soft-features. He isn't unpleasant to look at. Throw him in a tribe of his neolithic counterparts though... It's all relative
Interesting to see how low his under-eye bags sit despite his eyes sitting high up in the orbit, from this I imagine his orbital bones are more oval shaped and long than compact circles.
The idea that the skull narrows and elongates with poor posture seems very obvious here. like it's all stretched down. He has a thin top lip which indicates to me that he speaks with his chin too, from the side his bottom lip probably comes forward from his top.
He gets away with it all though with good symmetry and nice soft-features. He isn't unpleasant to look at. Throw him in a tribe of his neolithic counterparts though... It's all relative
Good symmetry? His midface ratio is horrendous. Symmetry goes beyond just left to right, harmony also matters. And a long nose isn't considered a soft feature. Sure he has a flat forehead/no brow/low hairline and a small jaw but he isn't exactly a pretty boy. Out of all the friends cast he is considered the least good looking/dorkiest in appearance. I am sure the long midface doesn't help either. No lateral growth to be seen, either.
Forget Neolithic counterparts because his costars Matt LeBlanc and Matthew Perry both had way better development. One doesn't need to be Neolithic to have better bones than this guy, just average growth will suffice.
His skull isn't actually elongated, though. It only appears so due to his lack of width. What his skull lacks is both width and height. The height is low because his forehead and lower third are both short. His midface and middle third aren't terribly long because if his jaw developed more his face would get longer but also much wider. He ends up being one of those people with a skull that is vertically short but so narrow that it looks elongated.
Now that I keep analyzing it, I think Ross' nose may not actually be long. However, because his other facial bones didn't develop much, the middle part of his face looks too large. In actuality his nose may be of average length, while the rest of his skull and features would be below average. He does have a very soft structure which could make him a pretty boy if his nose and middle third didn't grow that much. You never see a "pretty boy" with a big nose, rather they have small (bony) features all around.
Posted : 15/03/2020 10:50 am
Leave a reply
Skull and Jaw Correction
Free Classes
Join hundreds who are Tensegrity Mewing, enhancing the good results of mewing and reversing damage. Free Newsletter and Classes
?cb=1390166327
