Interference of conventional and orthodontic nipples in system stomatognatic: systematic review

Corrêa, Camila de Castro; Bueno, Mariana da Rocha Salles; Lauris, José Roberto Pereira; Berretin-Felix, Giédre

doi:10.1590/2317-1782/20162015024

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Systematic Review • CoDAS 28 (2) • Apr 2016 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20162015024 copy

Interference of conventional and orthodontic nipples in system stomatognatic: systematic review

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Check if the type of nozzle, orthodontic or conventional, of pacifier and bottle have any influence on the changes found in the stomatognathic system caused by the maintenance of the sucking habit. Research Strategies: Through a systematic literature review with meta-analysis, performed from the databases Lilacs, Medline and Embase and Scholar Google, with the following key words in Portuguese and English: “malocclusion” + “Pacifiers “; “Malocclusion” + “Bottle Feeding”; “Malocclusion” + “Bottle feeding” beyond words “Orthodontic Beak” + “Conventional Beak”. Selection Criteria: We included studies that presented in their methods to compare groups who used pacifiers and/or bottle with conventional nozzle with groups using orthodontic nipple without temporal delimitation. Data Analysis: The analysis of the article in its entirety was performed systematically, ordering the relevant results in the following categories: objective, method—case studies and evaluation, results, and conclusion. Results: Found 1,041 jobs, from the period 1969 to 2013, 848 jobs were excluded based on the exclusion criteria and another 174 that were repetitions. A total of 19 articles were read in full of which 4 articles met the proposed inclusion criteria, and three studies were included in the meta-analysis. These results show that there are no significant differences between the orthodontic and conventional nozzles on the implications of the stomatognathic system. Conclusion: There is no way to conclude that there are differences as to the consequences to the stomatognathic system caused by conventional nozzles and orthodontic pacifier/bottle.

Keywords:
Malocclusion; Pacifiers; Nursing Bottles; Bottle Feeding; Orthodontics; Habits; Stomatognathic System; Speech; Language and Hearing Sciences

SEARCH STRATEGIES		DATABASES AND SEARCH ENGINE
1	“Má oclusão” AND “Chupetas”	Lilacs
2	“Má oclusão” AND “Alimentação Artificial”
3	“Má oclusão” AND “Mamadeira”
4	“Malocclusion” AND “Pacifiers”	Medline, Embase
5	“Malocclusion” AND “Bottle Feeding”
6	“Malocclusion” AND “Nursing Bottles”
7	“Bico Ortodôntico” AND “Bico Convencional”*	Lilacs, Medline, Embase and Google Scholar
8	“Orthodontic Pacifiers” AND “Conventional Pacifiers”*	Lilacs, Medline, Embase and Google Scholar

INCLUSION CRITERIA ADOPTED
Population	Children with a history of harmful oral habits, pacifier, and/or bottle
Intervention	Use of conventional and orthodontic nozzles on a pacifier and/or bottle
Comparison	Comparison of the use of conventional and orthodontic nozzles
Primary outcome	Stomatognatical system disorders caused by the use of different nozzles

	1 “Má oclusão” AND “Chupetas”	2 “Má oclusão” AND “Alimentação Artificial”	3 “Má oclusão” AND “Mamadeira”	4 “Malocclusion” AND “Pacifiers”	5 “Malocclusion” AND “Bottle Feeding”	6 “Malocclusion” AND “Nursing Bottles”	7 “Bico Ortodôntico” AND “ Bico Convencional”*	8 “Orthodontic Pacifiers” AND “Conventional Pacifiers”*
(L)Found	16	20	29				1
(L) Included	0	0	0				0
(M)Found				33	44	44		0
(M)Included				1 (R)	0	1		0
(E) Found				55	60	1		10
(E) Included				1	0	0		1
(GS)Found							767
(GS)Included							1

AUTHOR	TITLE	SOURCE	YEAR OF PUBLICATION	VOLUME ISSUE PAGES
MEYERS; HERTZBERG	Bottle-feeding and malocclusion: Is there an association?	American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics	1988	v. 93, n. 2, p. 149-152
ADAIR; MILANO; DUSHKU	Evaluation of the effects of orthodontic pacifiers on the primary dentitions of 24- to 59-month-old children: Preliminary study	Pediatric Dentistry	1992	v. 14, n. 1, p. 13-18
ZARDETTO; RODRIGUES; STEFANI	Effects of different pacifiers on the primary dentition and oral myofunctional structures of preschool children	Pediatric Dentistry	2002	v. 24, n. 6, p. 552-60
MESOMO; LOSSO	Evaluation of the effects of orthodontic and conventional pacifiers on the primary dentition	JBP Revista Ibero-americana de Odontopediatria &Odontologia do bebê	2004	v. 7, n. 38, p. 360-4

ARTIGO CIENTÍFICO (autor, ano)	CASUÍSTICA (número da amostra e faixa etária)	TIPO DE ESTUDO E NÍVEL DE EVIDÊNCIA ⁽ ²⁷27 Kyzas PA. Evidence-based oral and maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;66(5):973-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.01.024. PMid:18423289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2008.01... ^, ²⁸28 Hood PD. Scientific research and evidence-based practice. San Francisco: WestEd; 2003. ⁾	HÁBITO INVESTIGADO	INSTRUMENTOS DE AVALIAÇÃO	RESULTADOS	DESFECHO PRIMÁRIO	DESFECHO SECUNDÁRIO
MEYERS; HERTZBERG, 1988	454 children aged 10 to 12	Case-control 6	Pacifier and bottle	Questionnaire on history of habits and orthodontic treatment	There was no statistical difference in the type of pacifier/bottle nozzle on malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need.	There was a growing trend in the need for orthodontic treatment according to the time of use of the bottle, regardless of the nozzle.	New studies are suggested to examine individuals directly, not only by questionnaire, to confirm the results.
ADAIR; MILANO; DUSHKU, 1992	79 children aged 2 to 5	Cross-sectional 5	Pacifier	Questionnaire on history of habits and orthodontic treatment	Highest mean of increased overbite and open bite in the conventional pacifier group; Highest mean of increased overjet in orthodontic pacifier group; No significant differences	The two types of pacifier nozzles implied in occlusal changes, with no significant relationship between them.	From this study, new studies were suggested with most numerous samples, in addition to the consideration of more rigorous evaluations, comparing children who had the habit and stopped with those who kept their habit continuously.
ZARDETTO; RODRIGUES; STEFANI, 2002	61 children aged3 to 5	Cross-sectional 5	Pacifier	Questionnaire on history of habit and evaluation of occlusion and orofacial myofunctional structures.	Highest mean of posterior cross-bite in the conventional pacifier group; There was no difference between the results of the children who used orthodontic nozzles and those who used conventional nozzles.	The two types of nozzle resulted in changes to the occlusion and to the orofacial structures.	Further study are necessary to investigate the effects of pacifier in the orofacial structures and functions
MESOMO; LOSSO, 2004	119 children aged 3 to 6	Cross-sectional 5	Pacifier	Questionnaires on history of the habit and evaluation of the occlusion.	Presence of cross-bite associated with the use of conventional pacifier in 21%, with the use of orthodontic pacifier in 50%, and 8% in the group with no habit.	Open bite was observed in children with prolonged pacifier habit, regardless of the type of pacifier (orthodontic or conventional).	Not presented.

STUDY	TOTAL SAMPLE	CONTROL			CONVENTIONAL			ORTHODONTIC
STUDY	TOTAL SAMPLE	Total	OB	CB	Total	OB	CB	Total	OB	CB
MESOMO; LOSSO, 2004	119	63	4	5	42	40	9	14	13	7
ADAIR; MILANO; DUSHKU, 1992	79	25	1	4	27	8	5	27	4	7
ZARDETTO; RODRIGUES; STEFANI, 2002	61	27	0	0	14	7	2	20	10	2

Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia Al. Jaú, 684, 7º andar, 01420-002 São Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 - 3873-4211 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@codas.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Conflict of interests: nothing to declare.