ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Influence of the Physiological Pacifier on the Development of Malocclusions in Children: A Scoping Review.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pacifier Sizing as a Prescription for Better Oral Health Outcomes for Infants: A Call to Action.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Influence of pacifier design on pacifier-palate contact: a finite element analysis.Head & face medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs 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?
methodsA 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionsthe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.