The references in our evidence file do not support presenting hypnosis as more effective or faster than tongue retraining. To compare two approaches, first establish what they aim to change: understanding an instruction, experiencing a session, a swallowing movement or a dental outcome. These goals require different evidence.
Why the comparison is often misleading
A commercial presentation may group very different things under “results”. Feeling more comfortable during a session does not prove a tongue movement has changed. Performing a movement once does not prove it has become habitual. Finally, a posture change does not guarantee favourable tooth movement.
Before comparing methods, ask which outcome is measured, in which population and for how long. An individual experience or testimonial is insufficient to establish that one technique outperforms another.
What we know about myofunctional retraining
Retraining involves assessment, functional goals and checked exercises. Available studies report some favourable signals while remaining limited. In children with open bite and atypical swallowing, a pilot trial observed improvements in several tongue parameters. Van Dyck et al., 2016
However, systematic reviews in orthodontics highlight the small number of consistent studies and their risk of bias. They cannot support promises of guaranteed bite correction or an identical timeline for everyone. Homem et al., 2014
What can be claimed about hypnosis in this context?
The references used for this guide contain no high-quality comparative trial establishing that hypnosis corrects tongue posture or swallowing better than a retraining programme. We therefore cannot claim superiority, a success percentage or a shorter treatment course.
If a professional proposes hypnosis as support, ask about its precise role. They should distinguish that role from clinical assessment, exercises and any orthodontic follow-up. A supportive method should not make outcomes impossible to verify.
How can you assess a specific proposal?
- The initial need: which difficulty did assessment identify?
- The role of hypnosis: which goal does it serve in the programme?
- The evidence: does it concern the tongue and function being worked on, or another topic?
- Follow-up: how and when will progress be checked?
- Patient choice: which other approaches could serve the same goal?
A promise of automatic change without practice or review should be examined against these questions. You should understand what is proposed before committing time or money.
Exercises, appliances and support: keeping the roles clear
A tongue appliance does not replace precise instructions. Likewise, a supportive method does not determine appliance size or wearing conditions. Every element should have an explained function within the programme.
Start by understanding the types of tongue retraining exercises and the criteria for duration and evaluation. For a child, see the specific guide to hypnosis and paediatric tongue retraining.
Sources and method
- Homem et al., 2014. Systematic review of myofunctional therapy in orthodontics.
- Koletsi et al., 2018. Early treatment and myofunctional therapy in children.
- Van Dyck et al., 2016. Pilot trial in 22 children with anterior open bite.
Written by: Dr Vladimir Khourda, a dentist who no longer practises. Informational content updated on 1 October 2026 using the references cited. It does not replace an individual assessment.