Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41065558›Full record

ReviewClinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)2026

Calvarial Bloom Biomechanics: Dural Tension Governing Cranial Form.

Richard G Standerwick, W Eugene Roberts

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Richard G StanderwickPrivate Practice, Walnut Grove Orthodontist, Langley, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4648-2792
W Eugene RobertsIndiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Calvarial Blooming Model (CBM) describes cranial vault growth as a Class III lever system in which patterned brain expansion supplies the effort, dural tethers act as fulcra, and sutures serve as load-transfer zones. In contrast to models emphasizing muscular loading or genetic determinism, CBM frames the cranium as a compliant, tension-sensitive structure shaped by cerebral growth, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) buoyancy, and intracranial pulsations. Evidence from multiple sources was used to illustrate the framework. Bolton Standards cephalometric superimpositions (ages 6-18) provided conservative estimates of sutural displacement and vault surface area expansion. Cases from the AAOF Legacy Collection demonstrated late-phase remodeling often absent in standard datasets. Published finite-element analyses of sutural strain and dural tension pathways, together with clinical and histological observations, further supported the model. Perturbations of genetic and environmental regulators-including RUNX2, FGFRs, and BMPs-disrupt these strain pathways and produce craniofacial anomalies consistent with CBM predictions. Recognizing cranial vault expansion as the action of a tensioned dural hammock operating under Class III lever mechanics clarifies how patterned brain growth directs vault remodeling and suggests new approaches to craniosynostosis correction and growth modification.

Indexed as

Dura MaterSkullBiomechanical PhenomenaCranial SuturesCraniosynostosesFinite Element AnalysisHumansaponeurotic tensionbiomechanicsCalvarial Blooming Modelcerebrospinal fluidcraniofacial growthcraniosynostosisdura mater

Identifiers

PMID41065558
PMCPMC13584690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.