Part of the reason that there is so much controversy about whether or not the bones of the head move or not is because most practitioners put their hands on a persons head and palpate the subtle movement taking place under their hands. Braces are based on the idea that the head is pliable and can be reshaped to align teeth. If the bones of the head fuse and could not move, there would be no reason for braces. We have evidence that the bones of the head can move all around us. Therefore, in terms of being able to handle traumas and changes in pressure, it would make sense of the head to be able to expand. That way, when the pressure in the head changes, the effect on the brain is minimized. If a scenario occurs where the pressure in the head changes (such as flying or having a cold), then it would be helpful for the bones to be pliable and expand.

By not fusing, the head can then change and adapt better to changes in intracranial pressure. A blunt trauma would break the skull easier like an egg shell and the force would be transferred to the brain more strongly. If the skull fused, then the skull would be very hard like the outer casing of a helmet. This would allow the brain to be less affected by the trauma. If one receives a blunt trauma to the head, the pliability allowed by movement of the bones of the head allows the bones to absorb much of the impact. Part of the purpose of the skull is to encase and protect the brain. Proper motion allows the head to be pliable to better absorb the shock of a trauma or changes in intracranial pressure. So if the body is capable of completely fusing the bones of the head, then why does it not do this?Īlthough there are not large amounts of movement in the head, there is some. In addition, skulls can be disarticulated using the expansive properties of rice to separate the bones at the sutures. This fusion, however, does not take place or one would be unable to distinguish each separate bone of the skull once fusion had taken place. Clearly the human body would be capable of completely fusing the bones of the head if it intended it to do so. There are sutures between the occiput and the bones it articulates with. This fusion is complete and does not have any sutures between them. The occiput forms by the fusion of 4 separate components. There are many examples of this during development. For example, each pelvic bone develops as three separate parts (ischium, ilium, and pubis) that fuse into one bone with no sutures between them. This may seem insignificant as evidence but during development, there are many bones that form in separate parts and do actually fuse to form one bone.

Why are there sutures in the head? If you look at a skull, there are sutures throughout the head making each bone identifiable. Reason 1: Embryological Side view of some of the bones of the skull

I want to discuss 5 reasons I have found that support the bones of the head do move. I am not arguing that this is sufficient research because I do feel more is needed. I found a dissertation that discusses much of the research about the fusion of the sutures here. Much of this research is on the Cranial Academy’s web site. However, there is much more research showing that there the bones of the head can than there is research showing that the bones of the head do not move. There may not be sufficient evidence at this time supporting this idea. To this day, there’s plenty of criticism that this concept is based on ‘pseudoscience.’ Many state that there is ‘no research’ supporting this idea. This idea has been highly controversial since it was first presented to the world over 60 years ago. The movement can be described as an expansion and compression that take place much how the rib cage moves during respiration. One of the components of the cranial concept for practitioners who practice cranial osteopathy or craniosacral therapy is that the bones of the head move along the sutures.

Only movable bone in the skull