Pediatric dentistry · 2002
Effects of different pacifiers on the primary dentition and oral myofunctional strutures of preschool children.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Zardetto Cristina Giovannetti del Conte, Rodrigues Célia Regina Martins Delgado, Stefani Fabiane Miron
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of the dental arches and some oral myofunctional structures in 36- to 60-month-old children who sucked a pacifier or did not have this habit.
METHODS: Sixty-one children were divided into 3 groups: (1) those who never sucked a pacifier, (2) those who exclusively sucked a physiological pacifier, and (3) those who exclusively sucked a conventional one. A clinical examination was performed on the children to observe the relationship between the arches and their width, as well as the following oral myofunctional structures: lips, tongue, cheeks, and hard palate.
RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed that: (1) the use of both ytpes of pacifiers led to anterior open bite (prevalence of 50% in both groups; P = . 001), (2) posterior crossbite was present only on children who had a pacifier-sucking habit, (3) the mean oveqrjt was greater on children who sucked physiological (3.6 mm) or conventional (3.7 mm) pacifiers when compared to those with no sucking habits (1.3 mm; P = .001), (4) intercanine distance of the upper arch was significantly smalelr on children who sucked pacifiers (29.6 mm in the physiological group and 29.2 mm in the conventional pacifier group) than those who did not (31.2 mm), and (5) the children who never sucked on a pacifier showed a higher prevalence of normality of cheek mobility (74%; P = .022) and hard palate shape (78%; P = .042).
CONCLUSIONS: Children who sucked pacifiers, both conventional and physiological ones, showed higher prevalence of alterations in the relationship of the dental arches and orla myofunctional structures, when compared to those who never sucked a pacifier.
METHODS: Sixty-one children were divided into 3 groups: (1) those who never sucked a pacifier, (2) those who exclusively sucked a physiological pacifier, and (3) those who exclusively sucked a conventional one. A clinical examination was performed on the children to observe the relationship between the arches and their width, as well as the following oral myofunctional structures: lips, tongue, cheeks, and hard palate.
RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed that: (1) the use of both ytpes of pacifiers led to anterior open bite (prevalence of 50% in both groups; P = . 001), (2) posterior crossbite was present only on children who had a pacifier-sucking habit, (3) the mean oveqrjt was greater on children who sucked physiological (3.6 mm) or conventional (3.7 mm) pacifiers when compared to those with no sucking habits (1.3 mm; P = .001), (4) intercanine distance of the upper arch was significantly smalelr on children who sucked pacifiers (29.6 mm in the physiological group and 29.2 mm in the conventional pacifier group) than those who did not (31.2 mm), and (5) the children who never sucked on a pacifier showed a higher prevalence of normality of cheek mobility (74%; P = .022) and hard palate shape (78%; P = .042).
CONCLUSIONS: Children who sucked pacifiers, both conventional and physiological ones, showed higher prevalence of alterations in the relationship of the dental arches and orla myofunctional structures, when compared to those who never sucked a pacifier.