Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35236336›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2022

Functional comparison of pacifiers using finite element analysis.

David A Tesini, Linda C Hu, Brent H Usui, Christopher L Lee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Biomechanical evaluation of different plunger size and plunger position on removing soft contact lenses and rigid gas permeable contact lenses.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David A TesiniDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, 1 Kneeland St., Boston, MA, 02111, USA.
Linda C HuOlin College of Engineering, 1000 Olin Way, Needham, MA, 02492, USA.
Brent H UsuiOlin College of Engineering, 1000 Olin Way, Needham, MA, 02492, USA.
Christopher L LeeOlin College of Engineering, 1000 Olin Way, Needham, MA, 02492, USA. christopher.lee@olin.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0547-9853
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering · USTufts University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPacifiers have been shown to affect maxillary growth related to the anatomic structure of the palate and forces placed upon it during sucking. This study compares and evaluates the mechanical behavior of pacifiers of different design and size (i.e., fit), identified by brand and size, positioned in age-specific palatal models with respect to both contact area and force when subjected to peristaltic tongue function and intraoral pressure related to non-nutritive sucking.

methodsNonlinear finite element analyses were used to simulate dynamic mechanical interaction between the pacifiers and palates. Time-varying, external pressure loads were applied which represent intraoral pressure arising from non-nutritive sucking and peristaltic behavior of the tongue. The silicone rubber pacifier bulb was represented using a hyperelastic material model.

resultsResults from the finite element analyses include deformation, stress, strain, contact area, and contact force. Mechanical interaction was evaluated in terms of the spatial distribution of the contact area and force between the pacifier and the palate. The resulting palatal interaction profiles were quantitatively compared to assess how pacifier fit specifically affects the support provided to two areas of the palate, the palatal vault and the Tektal wall.

conclusionsPacifiers interact with the palate differently based on their fit (i.e., design and size) regardless of whether they are labeled conventional or orthodontic. Finite element analysis is an effective tool for evaluating how a pacifier's design affects functional mechanics and for providing guidance on biometric sizing.

Indexed as

MalocclusionPacifiersFinite Element AnalysisHumansInfantPalateSucking BehaviorTongueFinite element analysisMalocclusionNon-nutritive suckingPacifierPalatePosterior crossbite

Identifiers

PMID35236336
PMCPMC8892731
OpenAlexW4214880825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.