They Won’t Remember the Helmet—But They’ll Carry the Results Forever

By Stuart Weiner, CPO, LPO

The baby’s helmet didn’t concern me—it fit perfectly. It was custom-made, 3D-scanned, and comfortable—the kind of start we aim for at our clinic every time. The parents had been diligent. They were back just one week after the initial fitting and were on schedule.

But something had shifted.

“We read that Dutch study,” the father said. “It says helmets don’t work. Are we being scammed?”

His voice wasn’t angry anymore, anxious, teetering, or betrayed. The mother added, “Some people online are saying this is all unnecessary, that we’re being taken advantage of.”

I’ve heard versions of this before. But this one hurt. Because their baby had only just started helmet therapy—therapy they’d chosen with hope. A week in. Not even enough time for a follow-up scan.

Already, doubt was creeping in, fueled by a 2014 study and amplified years later by an op-ed in The New York Times that questioned whether helmets had a place in modern pediatrics.

Moments like that make you realize how powerful a headline can be—and how dangerous it is when outdated science masquerades as settled truth.

The Dutch Study: A Narrow Lens with Wide Fallout
Let’s get into it. The 2014 Dutch randomized trial, published in the BMJ, concluded that helmet therapy for infants with plagiocephaly had no statistically significant benefit compared to doing nothing. Sounds damning—until you read the fine print.

First, they only include infants with moderate head shape deformities. Severe cases? Excluded. So were babies with torticollis and developmental delays—despite those conditions frequently co-occurring with plagiocephaly.

Second, the timing was late. Helmets were applied for around six months, already edging past the optimal window when the skull is most malleable. In my clinic, we try to intervene between 4 and 6 months, when brain growth is rapid, and shape correction is most efficient.

Third—and this is a big one—the helmets used were outdated and ill-fitting. According to the study itself, 73% of parents reported issues with helmet shifting or rotating, and over 30% reported pain. That’s not helmet therapy. That’s terrible equipment. You wouldn’t judge someone with crooked teeth on their braces if the wires weren’t even attached.

Perhaps most frustratingly, the researchers focused only on head symmetry at 24 months without considering functional outcomes, long-term development, or psychosocial effects. They deemed the differences “cosmetic.” I’ve spent my career showing that they are anything but.

The NYT Amplifier
Then came the New York Times article, published several years after the study but with the same dismissive tone. It treated helmets as a reflexively prescribed overreaction, lumped together with parental anxiety and medical overreach. I had parents come into my office quoting that article word for word.

That piece didn’t ask what kind of helmets were used in the Dutch trial, about severity levels, interview families who had seen real results—just the outliers, or ask about advancements we’ve made since 2014 in 3D scanning, design, or compliance.

In short, it wasn’t medicine. It was a narrative.

The Evidence They Don’t Talk About
Here’s what that article—and the Dutch study—don’t mention: the overwhelming volume of research that contradicts their conclusions.

A German study by Kluba et al. found that infants treated with helmets showed nearly three times the improvement in head shape compared to those who received no intervention—even though they started with more severe asymmetry [1].

A Korean study tracked 90 infants and found 84% success rates for those fitted with helmets before 9 months of age. Those who started earlier had better outcomes, less residual asymmetry, and shorter treatment durations [2].

In Japan, a study of over 2,000 infants confirmed that earlier helmet use—ideally between 4 and 6 months—resulted in a more significant improvement in head shape, with even slight delays reducing effectiveness day by day [3].

Another 2020 study compared helmet therapy with repositioning and found helmeted babies experienced significantly better symmetry correction across all severity levels—mild, moderate, and severe [4].

These aren’t cherry-picked results. They are consistent across continents and cultures. And they align with what I’ve seen in my clinic weekly.

Modern Helmets: A New Standard of Care
Let’s discuss what helmet therapy entails in 2025, not 2010.
Today’s STARband 3D helmets are light, breathable, and digitally contoured to a baby’s exact anatomy. Our clinic uses 3D scanning to generate a model within seconds. There is no casting, no mess, just precision.

The helmet is then fabricated using CAD software, with strategic pressure zones and growth relief areas that gently guide the skull into a symmetrical shape. Most babies adapt within days. And parents? Once they see the before-and-after scans, their doubts vanish.

I’ve had parents cry when the helmet comes off for good—not because it was hard, but because the difference is undeniable.

Beyond Aesthetics: Function and Future
One of the most misleading ideas from the Dutch study is that head shape doesn’t matter in the long term. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Significant cranial asymmetry can impact ear alignment, making it challenging to fit glasses or hearing aids properly. It can alter jaw development, leading to bite issues or TMJ problems. It can contribute to vision tracking delays, ear infections, and even airway obstruction in extreme cases.
But beyond the physical? There’s the emotion.
Children notice differences. Classmates notice differences. I’ve spoken to adults who remember being teased for their head shape. They wear hats to conceal it, style their hair in a certain way, and some even consider cosmetic surgery later in life.
Parents don’t pursue helmet therapy because they are vain. They do it because they want to protect their child from something preventable.

What I Tell Parents Today
When families walk into my clinic with a baby under 6 months and moderate-to-severe flattening, I give them three things:
1. A scan of their baby’s head with clear asymmetry metrics.
2. A roadmap: how long helmet therapy would take and what kind of improvement to expect.
3. And the truth: doing nothing might lead to lifelong asymmetry and regret.

I tell them that helmet therapy works best when used early. We’ve treated over 10,000 infants with success, and they’re not alone. This isn’t about fear; it’s about giving their baby the best start.

Sometimes, they still mention the Dutch study. When they do, I thank them for being informed and then walk them through everything that the study misses.

The Bottom Line for Your Baby’s Future
Helmet therapy isn’t controversial. It’s misunderstood.
The Dutch study was a single, limited snapshot characterized by a small sample, poor timing, and inadequate execution. The New York Times piece built a narrative on that shaky ground and caused actual confusion.

But we now have a decade more data, thousands of success stories, and modern technology that changes everything. STARband 3D systems, early intervention, and personalized care have made helmet therapy safer, faster, and more effective than ever before.

So, when a parent asks me if they’re being scammed, I tell them: “The only scam is letting one flawed study talk you out of a treatment that could change your child’s future.”

And then we get to work.

The Cranial Center of New Jersey is one of the first and finest cranial centers on the East Coast, specializing in early intervention cranial and helmet therapy. Cranial Center was the first to offer the STARband™ scanner and helmets in New Jersey and the third company in the world with 3-D technology. Owned and operated by Stuart Weiner, CPO, the Cranial Center is certified by the American Board of Certification in Orthotics, Prosthetics, and Pedorthics. Our facilities are conveniently located across New Jersey: Hackensack, Hazlet, and Morristown. Contact us for a complimentary consultation at 800 685 9116 or at info@cranialcenter.com
________________________________________
Bibliography
1. Kluba S. et al., J. Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 2014
2. Jung H. et al., Clin Exp Pediatr, 2022
3. Aihara Y. et al., Child’s Nervous System, 2024
4. Wen J. et al., J. Paediatr Child Health, 2020
5. Lipira AB. et al., Pediatrics, 2010
6. Collett BR. et al., Pediatrics, 2013
7. Hoover KB. et al., J. Child Neurology, 2016
8. Rogers GF. et al., Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 2013