Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
Influence of the Physiological Pacifier on the Development of Malocclusions in Children: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Caleza-Jiménez Carolina, Rodríguez Romero Inés, Ribas-Perez David, Biedma-Perea María
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: As a result of the dental alterations pacifiers can cause, several designs have been described, differing in the shape and size of the teat. The aim of this review was to compare the influence of the physiological pacifier on the development of malocclusions in children with other types of pacifier. The research question was: does the use of physiological pacifiers cause less dentomaxillary alterations than other designs?
METHODS: A scoping review was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The ROBINS-I risk of bias tool was used for the methodology assessment of the included studies.
RESULTS: Of the 122 articles identified in the initial search, 5 articles met all the inclusion criteria. In all of them, in general, the use of the pacifier caused malocclusions such as an anterior open bite, a posterior crossbite, an increased overjet, and an involvement of the overbite. Children who began using the physiological pacifier very early, between 0 and 3 months, were less likely to develop finger sucking/thumb sucking compared to children who started after 3 months. In the prevalence of open anterior bite and overjet, there was a significant difference between the use of conventional pacifiers and anatomical pacifiers compared to the use of physiological pacifiers.
CONCLUSIONS: the physiological pacifier can cause fewer oral alterations and could be the best option as a pacifier, however, more well-designed and high-quality randomised clinical trials are required.
METHODS: A scoping review was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. The ROBINS-I risk of bias tool was used for the methodology assessment of the included studies.
RESULTS: Of the 122 articles identified in the initial search, 5 articles met all the inclusion criteria. In all of them, in general, the use of the pacifier caused malocclusions such as an anterior open bite, a posterior crossbite, an increased overjet, and an involvement of the overbite. Children who began using the physiological pacifier very early, between 0 and 3 months, were less likely to develop finger sucking/thumb sucking compared to children who started after 3 months. In the prevalence of open anterior bite and overjet, there was a significant difference between the use of conventional pacifiers and anatomical pacifiers compared to the use of physiological pacifiers.
CONCLUSIONS: the physiological pacifier can cause fewer oral alterations and could be the best option as a pacifier, however, more well-designed and high-quality randomised clinical trials are required.