European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2018
Malocclusion prevention through the usage of an orthodontic pacifier compared to a conventional pacifier: a systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Medeiros R, Ximenes M, Massignan C, Flores-Mir C, Vieira R, Porporatti A L, De Luca Canto G
Аннотация
AIM: This was to investigate the occurrence of malocclusion traits among children who were users of orthodontic or conventional pacifier by means of a systematic review.
METHODS: Search for articles involved five electronic databases: Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), PsycINFO, PubMed (including MedLine), Scopus and Web of Science. Grey literature was partially assessed. Observational studies with children aged 6-60 months who had used orthodontic or conventional pacifier were included. The risk of bias among included studies was assessed through the Joanna Briggs Institute Tool.
RESULTS: From the 607 initially-identified papers only three were included after the selection process. All presented moderate risk of bias. Although an anterior open bite and accentuated overjet were identified among conventional users of pacifier in one study no differences were identified in the other two selected studies. Posterior crossbite frequency was not different in any of the included studies. There was also no difference regarding frequency and duration of use, except in the study that showed higher occurrence of open bite malocclusion in conventional pacifier users.
CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence is insufficient to support the concept that the usage of orthodontic pacifiers is able to prevent malocclusion traits when compared to the usage of conventional pacifiers.
METHODS: Search for articles involved five electronic databases: Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), PsycINFO, PubMed (including MedLine), Scopus and Web of Science. Grey literature was partially assessed. Observational studies with children aged 6-60 months who had used orthodontic or conventional pacifier were included. The risk of bias among included studies was assessed through the Joanna Briggs Institute Tool.
RESULTS: From the 607 initially-identified papers only three were included after the selection process. All presented moderate risk of bias. Although an anterior open bite and accentuated overjet were identified among conventional users of pacifier in one study no differences were identified in the other two selected studies. Posterior crossbite frequency was not different in any of the included studies. There was also no difference regarding frequency and duration of use, except in the study that showed higher occurrence of open bite malocclusion in conventional pacifier users.
CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence is insufficient to support the concept that the usage of orthodontic pacifiers is able to prevent malocclusion traits when compared to the usage of conventional pacifiers.