Re: Re: An investigation of cranial motion through a review of biomechanically based skull deformation literature

Abstract

The “cranial concept” has been a controversial subject since originally described by W.G. Sutherland in his 1944 seminal article “The Cranial Bowl” that was published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 1 Sutherland WG. The cranial bowl. J Am Osteopath Assoc, April 1944, Reprinted J Am Osteopath Assoc 2000;100:568–70. Google Scholar In order to help shed light on this controversial subject, we approached the debate from an engineering standpoint in a review article with the primary purpose of evaluating the plausibility of cranial movement in humans due to manual manipulation. 2 Seimetz C.N. Kemper A.R. Duma S.M. An investigation of cranial motion through a review of biomechanically based skull deformation literature. Int J Osteopath Med. 2012; 15: 152-165 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (14) Google Scholar The “letter to the editor” by Gabutti and Draper-Rodi regarding our review article raises some points which we also believe require further consideration in the ongoing debate of cranial movement due to manual manipulation. However, based on the comments by Gabutti and Draper-Rodi, there appear to be some misunderstandings regarding the fundamental mechanics and assumptions used in our review article, which we will attempt to clarify in this response letter. Re: An investigation of cranial motion through a review of biomechanically based skull deformation literatureInternational Journal of Osteopathic MedicineVol. 16Issue 3PreviewWe have read with great interest the review by Seimetz et al.1 as we believe that examining the skull and surrounding tissues from a mechanical engineering standpoint is of the utmost importance. However, the paper raises certain points which in our opinion require further consideration. Full-Text PDF