The Experts below are selected from a list of 4626 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Fern R. Hauck - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Pacifiers and Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review
Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 2009Co-Authors: Nina R. O’connor, Kawai O. Tanabe, Mir S. Siadaty, Fern R. HauckAbstract:Objective To summarize current evidence on the association between infant pacifier use and breastfeeding. Data Sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, POPLINE, and bibliographies of identified articles. Study Selection A search for English-language records (from January 1950 through August 2006) containing the Medical Subject Heading terms Pacifiers and breastfeeding was conducted, resulting in 1098 reports. Duplicate and irrelevant studies were excluded, yielding 29 studies that fit inclusion criteria for the review (4 randomized controlled trials, 20 cohort studies, and 5 cross-sectional studies). Two independent reviewers abstracted data and scored these studies for quality; disagreements were settled through consensus with a third investigator. Main Exposure Pacifier use. Main Outcome Measures Breastfeeding duration or exclusivity. Results Results from 4 randomized controlled trials revealed no difference in breastfeeding outcomes with different pacifier interventions (pacifier use during tube feeds, pacifier use at any time after delivery, an educational program for mothers emphasizing avoidance of Pacifiers, and a UNICEF [United Nations Children’s Fund]/World Health Organization Baby Friendly Hospital environment). Most observational studies reported an association between pacifier use and shortened duration of breastfeeding. Conclusions The highest level of evidence does not support an adverse relationship between pacifier use and breastfeeding duration or exclusivity. The association between shortened duration of breastfeeding and pacifier use in observational studies likely reflects a number of other complex factors, such as breastfeeding difficulties or intent to wean. Ongoing quantitative and qualitative research is needed to better understand the relationship between pacifier use and breastfeeding.
-
Pacifiers and sudden infant death syndrome what should we recommend
Pediatrics, 2006Co-Authors: Fern R. HauckAbstract:The association between Pacifiers and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) has been known for some time. A possible protective effect was proposed as early as 19791 and subsequently supported by findings from a large case-control study in 1993,2 followed by several others.3–11 However, there has been reluctance among SIDS researchers and health professionals to recommend pacifier use as a potentially protective measure; they state the need to know more about the mechanisms of its effects and the role of possible confounding factors, thoroughly evaluate potential harm as well as potential benefits, and validate this apparent protective effect.2,4,12 Pacifiers have been recommended for all infants in Germany13 and in the Netherlands initially for bottle-fed infants9 and now for all infants.14 In October 2005 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published updated guidelines for the reduction of SIDS risk and included a recommendation that parents consider offering a pacifier to infants at … Address correspondence to Fern R. Hauck, MD, MS, Department of Family Medicine, University of Virginia School of Medicine, PO Box 800729, Charlottesville, VA 22908-0729. E-mail: frh8e{at}virginia.edu
-
do Pacifiers reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome a meta analysis
Pediatrics, 2005Co-Authors: Fern R. Hauck, Olanrewaju O Omojokun, Mir S. SiadatyAbstract:Objective. Pacifier use has been re- ported to be associated with a reduced risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), but most countries around the world, including the United States, have been reluctant to recommend the use of Pacifiers because of concerns about possible adverse effects. This meta-anal- ysis was undertaken to quantify and evaluate the protec- tive effect of Pacifiers against SIDS and to make a rec- ommendation on the use of Pacifiers to prevent SIDS. Methods. We searched the Medline database (January 1966 to May 2004) to collect data on pacifier use and its association with SIDS, morbidity, or other adverse ef- fects. The search strategy included published articles in English with the Medical Subject Headings terms "sud- den infant death syndrome" and "pacifier" and the key- words "dummy" and "soother." Combining searches re- sulted in 384 abstracts, which were all read and evaluated for inclusion. For the meta-analysis, articles with data on the relationship between pacifier use and SIDS risk were limited to published original case-control studies, be- cause no prospective observational reports were found; 9 articles met these criteria. Two independent reviewers evaluated each study on the basis of the 6 criteria devel- oped by the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Infant Positioning and SIDS; in cases of disagree- ment, a third reviewer evaluated the study, and a consen- sus opinion was reached. We developed a script to cal- culate the summary odds ratio (SOR) by using the reported ORs and respective confidence intervals (CI) to weight the ORs. We then pooled them together to com- pute the SOR. We performed the Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of ORs, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for the null hypothesis of no effect (OR 1), and the Mantel- Haenszel common OR estimate. The consistency of find- ings was evaluated and the overall potential benefits of pacifier use were weighed against the potential risks. Our recommendation is based on the taxonomy of the 5-point (A-E) scale adopted by the US Preventive Ser- vices Task Force. Results. Seven studies were included in the meta- analysis. The SOR calculated for usual pacifier use (with univariate ORs) is 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-1.03) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59-0.85) with multivariate ORs. For pacifier use during last sleep, the SORs calcu- lated using univariate and multivariate ORs are 0.47 (95% CI: 0.40-0.55) and 0.39 (95% CI: 0.31-0.50), respectively. Conclusions. Published case-control studies demon- strate a significant reduced risk of SIDS with pacifier use, particularly when placed for sleep. Encouraging pac- ifier use is likely to be beneficial on a population-wide basis: 1 SIDS death could be prevented for every 2733 (95% CI: 2416-3334) infants who use a pacifier when placed for sleep (number needed to treat), based on the US SIDS rate and the last-sleep multivariate SOR result- ing from this analysis. Therefore, we recommend that pac- ifiers be offered to infants as a potential method to reduce the risk of SIDS. The pacifier should be offered to the infant when being placed for all sleep episodes, including daytime naps and nighttime sleeps. This is a US Preventive Services Task Force level B strength of recommendation based on the consistency of findings and the likelihood that the beneficial effects will outweigh any potential negative effects. In consideration of potential adverse effects, we recommend pacifier use for infants up to 1 year of age, which includes the peak ages for SIDS risk and the period in which the infant's need for sucking is highest. For breastfed infants, Pacifiers should be introduced after breastfeeding has been well established. Pediatrics 2005; 116:e716-e723. URL: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/ peds.2004-2631; Pacifiers, SIDS, risk factors, risk reduc- tion, meta-analytic methods.
Carlalberta Verna - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures: a systematic literature review
Progress in Orthodontics, 2018Co-Authors: Karin Michèle Schmid, Remo Kugler, Prasad Nalabothu, Carles Bosch, Carlalberta VernaAbstract:Background Non-nutritive sucking habits may adversely affect the orofacial complex. This systematic literature review aimed to find scientific evidence on the effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures. Methods A search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases was conducted to find all pertinent articles published from inception until February 2018, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the risk of bias judgements in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). Results Among the 2288 articles found, 17 articles met the selection criteria: seven prospective cohort studies, nine cross-sectional studies, and one randomized clinical trial. Using ROBINS-I, 12 studies were evaluated to have a serious overall risk of bias and five, a moderate one. These studies claimed a strong association between a pacifier sucking habit and the presence of an anterior open bite and posterior crossbite. Functional/orthodontic Pacifiers were shown to cause significantly less open bites than the conventional ones. Conclusions High level of evidence of the effect of sucking habits on orofacial structures is missing. The available studies show severe or moderate risk of bias; hence, the findings in the literature need to be very carefully evaluated. There is moderate evidence that the use of pacifier is associated with anterior open bite and posterior crossbite, thus affecting the harmonious development of orofacial structures. Functional/orthodontic Pacifiers reduce the prevalence of open bite when compared to the conventional ones, but evidence is needed concerning the effects on posterior crossbite. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to further analyze the effects of functional/orthodontic and conventional Pacifiers on orofacial structures.
-
the effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures a systematic literature review
Progress in Orthodontics, 2018Co-Authors: Karin Michèle Schmid, Remo Kugler, Prasad Nalabothu, Carles Bosch, Carlalberta VernaAbstract:Non-nutritive sucking habits may adversely affect the orofacial complex. This systematic literature review aimed to find scientific evidence on the effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures. A search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases was conducted to find all pertinent articles published from inception until February 2018, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the risk of bias judgements in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). Among the 2288 articles found, 17 articles met the selection criteria: seven prospective cohort studies, nine cross-sectional studies, and one randomized clinical trial. Using ROBINS-I, 12 studies were evaluated to have a serious overall risk of bias and five, a moderate one. These studies claimed a strong association between a pacifier sucking habit and the presence of an anterior open bite and posterior crossbite. Functional/orthodontic Pacifiers were shown to cause significantly less open bites than the conventional ones. High level of evidence of the effect of sucking habits on orofacial structures is missing. The available studies show severe or moderate risk of bias; hence, the findings in the literature need to be very carefully evaluated. There is moderate evidence that the use of pacifier is associated with anterior open bite and posterior crossbite, thus affecting the harmonious development of orofacial structures. Functional/orthodontic Pacifiers reduce the prevalence of open bite when compared to the conventional ones, but evidence is needed concerning the effects on posterior crossbite. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to further analyze the effects of functional/orthodontic and conventional Pacifiers on orofacial structures.
Mubashir Angolkar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effect of restricted pacifier use in breastfeeding term infants for increasing duration of breastfeeding.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012Co-Authors: Sharifah Halimah Jaafar, Shayesteh Jahanfar, Mubashir AngolkarAbstract:To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or Pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding; however, this remains unclear. To assess the effect of unrestricted versus restricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 March 2012). Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing unrestricted versus restricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding regardless of whether they were born at home or in the hospital. Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data were checked for accuracy. We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.05), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06) and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), and at 4 months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03). Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. However, evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of Pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.
-
Cochrane Review: Pacifier use versus no pacifier use in breastfeeding term infants for increasing duration of breastfeeding
Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal, 2012Co-Authors: Sharifah Halimah Jaafar, Shayesteh Jahanfar, Mubashir AngolkarAbstract:Background To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or Pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding; however, this remains unclear. Objectives To assess the effect of pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010). Selection criteria Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding regardless of whether they were born at home or in the hospital. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Main results We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06) and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02), and at 4 months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03). Authors' conclusions Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. However, evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of Pacifiers on infants' health is lacking. Plain Language Summary Effect of pacifier use on duration of breastfeeding in full-term infants Breast milk is superior to other baby foods in providing balanced nutrition and protection against allergy and infection to newborns. Breastfeeding is recommended by the World Health Organization, exclusively in the first six months and then as a dietary supplement. Breastmilk production and supply are maintained by frequent suckling of the breast and nipple stimulation. A pacifier is a non-nutritive sucking device used to calm an infant that has become a cultural norm in many parts of the world. However there is a widespread belief that Pacifiers may interfere with breast milk production and lead to discontinuation of breastfeeding. Our review concluded that for mothers who are motivated to breastfeed their infants, pacifier use before or after breastfeeding was established did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. The review provided moderate evidence from three randomised controlled trials (involving 1915 babies) comparing pacifier use and no pacifier use by healthy, full-term breastfeeding infants; two of the trials (1302 babies) were included in the analysis. However, there is a widespread belief that Pacifiers may interfere with breast milk production and lead to discontinuation of breastfeeding.
-
The Cochrane Library - Pacifier use versus no pacifier use in breastfeeding term infants for increasing duration of breastfeeding
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011Co-Authors: Sharifah Halimah Jaafar, Shayesteh Jahanfar, Mubashir AngolkarAbstract:Background To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or Pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding; however, this remains unclear. Objectives To assess the effect of pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010). Selection criteria Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding regardless of whether they were born at home or in the hospital. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Main results We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06) and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02), and at 4 months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03). Authors' conclusions Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. However, evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of Pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.
-
pacifier use versus no pacifier use in breastfeeding term infants for increasing duration of breastfeeding
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2011Co-Authors: Sharifah Halimah Jaafar, Shayesteh Jahanfar, Mubashir AngolkarAbstract:Background To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or Pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding; however, this remains unclear. Objectives To assess the effect of pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010). Selection criteria Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding regardless of whether they were born at home or in the hospital. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Main results We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06) and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02), and at 4 months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03). Authors' conclusions Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. However, evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of Pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.
-
Pacifier Use Compared With No Pacifier Use in Breastfeeding Term Infants for Increasing Duration of Breastfeeding
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011Co-Authors: Sharifah Halimah Jaafar, Shayesteh Jahanfar, Mubashir AngolkarAbstract:BACKGROUND: To successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or Pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding; however, this remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pacifier use versus no pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding regardless of whether they were born at home or in the hospital. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06) and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02), and at 4 months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.03). AUTHORS' CONCLUSION: Pacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. However, evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of Pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.
Steven M. Adair - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Pacifier use in children: a review of recent literature.
Pediatric dentistry, 2003Co-Authors: Steven M. AdairAbstract:Pediatric dentists are generally well aware of the oral implications of nonnutritive sucking (NNS). NNS via digit or pacifier can effect changes in the occlusion, including openbite, excessive overjet, and possibly posterior crossbite. Skeletal changes have also been attributed to NNS. There is some evidence that Pacifiers may do less harm to the dentition, particularly because pacifier habits are often spontaneously shed at about 2 to 4 years of age. Digit habits are more likely to persist into the school-age years and can require appliance therapy for discontinuation. Thus, some authorities suggest that Pacifiers be recommended for infants who engage in NNS. While pediatric dentists understand the oral and perioral effects of Pacifiers, they may be less well versed in other aspects of pacifier use that have been reported in the medical, nursing, chemical, and psychological literature. This paper provides reviews of literature concerning the role of pacifier NNS in 4 areas: (1) sudden infant death syndrome; (2) breast-feeding; (3) otitis media and other infections; and (4) safety. Knowledge of current literature in these areas may assist pediatric dentists with their decisions of whether to recommend or discourage pacifier use in infants. (Pediatr Dent. 2003;25:449-458)
-
effects of current and former pacifier use on the dentition of 24 to 59 month old children
Pediatric Dentistry, 1995Co-Authors: Steven M. Adair, M Milano, I Lorenzo, C RussellAbstract:Two hundred eighteen children ages 24-59 months participated in a study to examine the effect of pacifier use on the occlusion of the primary dentition. A questionnaire was used to gain information on habit history. Eighty-two children were current or former users of functional exercisers, 38 had a history of conventional pacifier use, and 98 had no history of oral habits. Compared to children with no habit, those with a history of pacifier use had a significantly larger mean overjet (P < 0.001), as well as significantly higher occurrences of Class II primary canines (P = 0.015), distal step molars (P = 0.014), openbite (P = 0.001), and posterior crossbite (P = 0.025). Compared to users of conventional Pacifiers, users of functional exercisers had a significantly higher occurrence of Class II primary canines (P = 0.013) and distal step molars (P = 0.037). Pacifier use time in months was significantly higher for children with openbite (P = 0.02) and posterior crossbite (P = 0.019). Compared to former pacifier users, those with current habits had a significantly higher prevalence of openbite (P = 0.002) and posterior crossbite (P = 0.001), and a greater mean openbite (P = 0.19). The reported number of hours use per day was not related to any aspect of the occlusion of pacifier users. African-American and European-American children began their habits at about the same age and used their Pacifiers for an equivalent number of hours per day. Among those who had discontinued their habits, African-American children had maintained theirs for a significantly shorter period (P < 0.001), leading to a longer elapsed time between habit discontinuation and the examination.
-
evaluation of the effects of orthodontic Pacifiers on the primary dentitions of 24 to 59 month old children preliminary study
Pediatric Dentistry, 1992Co-Authors: Steven M. Adair, M Milano, J C DushkuAbstract:This study was designed to compare the occlusions of 24- to 59-month-old children who used orthodontic or conventional Pacifiers to the occlusions of a group of controls who had no sucking habits. Information on the habits was collected by parental questionnaires. Ninety-five children were examined for malocclusions involving overbite, overjet, canine, and molar relationships, and posterior crossbites. Users of orthodontic Pacifiers had statistically significantly greater overjets, and there was a significantly higher proportion of subjects with open bite in the conventional pacifier group. There was a trend toward a greater number of subjects in the control and orthodontic pacifier group with overbites less than or equal to 50%. These differences were not clinically significant, however. There appeared to be only minor differences between the occlusions of the two pacifier groups.
Karin Michèle Schmid - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures: a systematic literature review
Progress in Orthodontics, 2018Co-Authors: Karin Michèle Schmid, Remo Kugler, Prasad Nalabothu, Carles Bosch, Carlalberta VernaAbstract:Background Non-nutritive sucking habits may adversely affect the orofacial complex. This systematic literature review aimed to find scientific evidence on the effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures. Methods A search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases was conducted to find all pertinent articles published from inception until February 2018, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the risk of bias judgements in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). Results Among the 2288 articles found, 17 articles met the selection criteria: seven prospective cohort studies, nine cross-sectional studies, and one randomized clinical trial. Using ROBINS-I, 12 studies were evaluated to have a serious overall risk of bias and five, a moderate one. These studies claimed a strong association between a pacifier sucking habit and the presence of an anterior open bite and posterior crossbite. Functional/orthodontic Pacifiers were shown to cause significantly less open bites than the conventional ones. Conclusions High level of evidence of the effect of sucking habits on orofacial structures is missing. The available studies show severe or moderate risk of bias; hence, the findings in the literature need to be very carefully evaluated. There is moderate evidence that the use of pacifier is associated with anterior open bite and posterior crossbite, thus affecting the harmonious development of orofacial structures. Functional/orthodontic Pacifiers reduce the prevalence of open bite when compared to the conventional ones, but evidence is needed concerning the effects on posterior crossbite. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to further analyze the effects of functional/orthodontic and conventional Pacifiers on orofacial structures.
-
the effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures a systematic literature review
Progress in Orthodontics, 2018Co-Authors: Karin Michèle Schmid, Remo Kugler, Prasad Nalabothu, Carles Bosch, Carlalberta VernaAbstract:Non-nutritive sucking habits may adversely affect the orofacial complex. This systematic literature review aimed to find scientific evidence on the effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures. A search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases was conducted to find all pertinent articles published from inception until February 2018, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the risk of bias judgements in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). Among the 2288 articles found, 17 articles met the selection criteria: seven prospective cohort studies, nine cross-sectional studies, and one randomized clinical trial. Using ROBINS-I, 12 studies were evaluated to have a serious overall risk of bias and five, a moderate one. These studies claimed a strong association between a pacifier sucking habit and the presence of an anterior open bite and posterior crossbite. Functional/orthodontic Pacifiers were shown to cause significantly less open bites than the conventional ones. High level of evidence of the effect of sucking habits on orofacial structures is missing. The available studies show severe or moderate risk of bias; hence, the findings in the literature need to be very carefully evaluated. There is moderate evidence that the use of pacifier is associated with anterior open bite and posterior crossbite, thus affecting the harmonious development of orofacial structures. Functional/orthodontic Pacifiers reduce the prevalence of open bite when compared to the conventional ones, but evidence is needed concerning the effects on posterior crossbite. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to further analyze the effects of functional/orthodontic and conventional Pacifiers on orofacial structures.
