SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.94 issue6Is willingness to exercise programmed in utero? Reviewing sedentary behavior and the benefits of physical activity in intrauterine growth restricted individualsAgreement between Subjective Global Nutritional Assessment and the nutritional assessment of the World Health Organization author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

Share


Jornal de Pediatria

Print version ISSN 0021-7557On-line version ISSN 1678-4782

J. Pediatr. (Rio J.) vol.94 no.6 Porto Alegre Nov./Dec. 2018

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2017.10.005 

Original articles

Association between pacifier use and bottle-feeding and unfavorable behaviors during breastfeeding, ☆☆

Christyann L.C. Batistaa  * 

Valdinar S. Ribeirob 

Maria do Desterro S.B. Nascimentoc 

Vandilson P. Rodriguesd 

aUniversidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA), Hospital Universitário, São Luís, MA, Brazil

bUniversidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA), Department of Medicine III, São Luís, MA, Brazil

cUniversidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA), Postgraduate Program in Adult and Child Health (PPGSAC), São Luís, MA, Brazil

dUniversidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA), Postgraduate Program in Dentistry (PPGO), São Luís, MA, Brazil

Abstract

Objective:

To investigate the association between pacifier use and bottle-feeding and unfavorable behaviors during breastfeeding.

Method:

A cross-sectional study was conducted with 427 babies/mothers. Socio-demographic, perinatal data, and information about the use of artificial nipples (pacifier and/or bottle) were collected through a questionnaire. The breastfeeding aspects regarding position, affectivity, sucking behavior, baby responses, and breast anatomy were evaluated through observation during breastfeeding. The chi-squared test and the multiple linear regression analysis were used to investigate the association between the variables.

Results:

The aspects of breastfeeding that showed higher percentages of the category "poor" were sucking behavior (22.5%) and position (22.2%). The group of infants who used pacifiers and/or bottle showed higher percentages in the poor and fair categories when compared with the good category for all five breastfeeding aspects evaluated (p < 0.001). The linear regression analysis revealed that the increase in the number of unfavorable behaviors regarding position, affectivity, sucking behavior, and baby responses were independently associated with both pacifier and bottle use (β positive, p < 0.05), while breast anatomy was independently associated only with bottle use.

Conclusion:

The findings suggest that the use of pacifiers and/or bottle-feeding may be associated with unfavorable behaviors during breastfeeding, especially the use of bottle-feeding.

KEYWORDS Breastfeeding; Pacifiers; Bottle-feeding

Introduction

Breastfeeding (BF) is recognized as the ideal strategy for infant feeding, particularly in the first six months of life, during which exclusive breastfeeding is recommended.1 In addition to the nutritional advantages, BF enhances the immune response, reducing the incidence of infections and other childhood morbidities. For the nursing mother, this practice is associated with a lower risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer.2

Estimates indicate a modest increase in the prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) among infants aged under 6 months in developed countries, from 33% in 1995 to 39% in 2010.3 In Brazil, this prevalence was 41% in all Brazilian capitals in 2008, showing a very heterogeneous behavior among the different regions.4 According to the parameters of the World Health Organization (WHO), EBF prevalence rates below 50% are considered poor.1

Several factors are associated with poor adherence to BF, including: family characteristics, factors related to prenatal and postnatal care, offer of alternative artificial formulas, return to work/studies, and lack of legal protection for breastfeeding.5-7 In addition to the aforementioned factors, the use of pacifiers and bottles has also been considered a strong risk factor for early weaning.8-12 The biological plausibility of this association is based on the dysfunction of muscle dynamics caused by the use of these devices,13-15 leading the baby to inadequate sucking behaviors.12

In turn, some systematic reviews indicated that the pacifier use does not interfere with BF16,17; however, both studies analyzed only the duration and exclusiveness of the outcome. Moreover, the American Association of Pediatrics started to suggest the use of pacifiers as a form of prevention of sudden death syndrome in childhood,18 contrary to the recommendations made by the WHO and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), which expressly recommend not using these devices in breastfed infants, aiming to achieve BF success.19

Considering the lack of consensus on the effects of pacifier use and/or bottle-feeding on BF practice, the aim of the present study was to investigate the association between the use of these artificial devices and the presence of unfavorable BF behaviors.

Methods

A cross-sectional observational study was carried out in the city of São Luís, MA, Brazil, between February and October 2016. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universidade Federal do Maranhão, under Opinion No. 1,412,752. All mothers were informed about the study objectives and procedures and signed the free and informed consent form.

The representative sample was calculated considering the following parameters: the number of live births in the Health District of São Luís (22,669 in 2015), the prevalence rate of bottle feeding in the city of São Luís (42.7%),4 a sample error of 5%, confidence level of 95%, and a loss rate of 15%. Thus, the required size comprised 427 babies/mothers.

Infants born at full term, aged between 5 and 120 days, treated for the first time at a Childcare Service at Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal do Maranhão (HUUFMA) were included in the study. The exclusion criteria comprised infants who had craniofacial anomalies, congenital neuropathies, and twin pregnancies, as well as mothers who were unable to breastfeed due to some disease or mammillary traumas that made sucking impossible.

Data collection was performed prior to childcare consultation, to avoid a possible influence after the guidelines received from the healthcare team. The initial interview consisted of questions asked verbally based on a semi-structured questionnaire, which included the following variables: baby's gender and age; maternal age, marital status, occupation, and schooling; family income (in Brazilian minimum wages); pregnancy data, such as primiparity, type of delivery (cesarean section or vaginal), prenatal care, place of delivery, and information received on BF; and the use of pacifiers and/or bottle-feeding.

BF was assessed by a single trained examiner (CLCB) using the adapted B-R-E-A-S-T-Feeding Observation Form.20 The tool evaluates the binomial (baby/mother) through direct observation of favorable behaviors or those suggesting difficulties during BF, regarding the aspects of position, baby's responses, establishment of affective ties, breast anatomy, and sucking behaviors. These five aspects of BF were ordinally classified (as good, fair, or poor) according to the number of unfavorable behaviors observed (Table 1), considering the previously used methodology.20

Table 1 Criteria for classification of the scores used in the breastfeeding assessment according to each evaluated aspect. 

Evaluated aspects Number of unfavorable behaviors Score classificationa
Good Fair Poor
Mother/child position 05 0-1 2-3 4-5
Binomial responses 06 0-1 2-3 4-6
Sucking behavior 06 0-1 2-3 4-6
Breast anatomy 04 0 1 2-4
Affectivity 03 0 1 2-3

aBased on the study by Carvalhaes and Corrêa.20

At this stage, the mothers were advised to breastfeed in the usual way. The BF episode was considered to be the one starting from the maternal intention to breastfeed, by placing the baby in her lap, trying to get the baby to latch, whereas the baby demonstrates the first characteristic oral reflexes of latching aptitude, followed by effectively latching and stabilization of the BF. The babies were assessed with an active level of awareness. All data collections were carried out in the morning.

Data were analyzed using the SPSS (SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 17.0, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics were performed using measures of absolute frequency, percentages, means, and standard deviation. The chi-squared test was used to analyze the distribution of classification scores regarding the aspects of BF observation between the groups with or without pacifier and/or bottle-feeding.

Multiple linear regression analysis was used to investigate the influence of the independent variables baby's age (in days), maternal age (in years), mother's number of children, information on BF (no = 0, yes = 1), previous experience of BF (no = 0, yes = 1), bottle-feeding (no = 0, yes = 1), and pacifier use (no = 0, yes = 1), on the dependent variables represented by the number of negative behaviors observed during BF regarding position, affectivity, sucking behavior, baby's responses, and breast anatomy. The dependent variables included in the regression model showed a normal distribution, measured through the D'Agostino-Pearson test. A significance level of 5% was used for all the analyses.

Results

Table 2 shows the characteristics of the babies/mothers included in the study. Most infants were older than 28 days (85.5%). Maternal age ranged from 13 to 47 years, and 44.7% of them were in the age range between 20 and 29 years. Most mothers (85.5%) reported they received information about BF during prenatal and/or postnatal visits. It was observed that, in this sample, 20.4% used bottle-feeding and 15.9% used pacifiers.

Table 2 Distribution of variables of general characterization, pacifier use, and bottle-feeding. 

Variables n (%)
Baby's age
≤28 days 62 (14.5)
>28 days 365 (85.5)
Baby's gender
Female 214 (50.1)
Male 213 (49.9)
Maternal age
Up to 19 years 72 (16.9)
Between 20 and 29 years 191 (44.7)
30 years or older 164 (38.4)
Maternal marital status
No partner 127 (29.7)
With partner 300 (70.2)
Maternal occupation
Unemployed or no occupation 245 (57.4)
Works outside the home 175 (41.0)
Works at home 7 (1.6)
Maternal schooling
Up to elementary school 70 (16.4)
Finished high school 245 (57.4)
Finished college/university 105 (24.6)
Finished post-graduation 7 (1.6)
Family income
Up to 1 MW 205 (48.0)
Higher than 1 and up to 3 MW 147 (34.4)
Higher than 3 up to 5 MW 53 (12.4)
Higher than 5 MW 22 (5.2)
First child
Yes 250 (58.5)
No 177 (41.5)
Type of delivery
Vaginal 217 (50.8)
Cesarean section 210 (49.2)
Received prenatal care
Yes 424 (99.3)
No 3 (0.7)
Place of delivery
Outside health unit 5 (1.2)
Public health unit 355 (83.1)
Private health unit 67 (15.7)
Received information on breastfeeding in the pre- and/or postnatal consultation
No 75 (17.6)
Yes 352 (82.4)
Bottle-feeding
Yes 87 (20.4)
No 340 (79.6)
Pacifier use
Yes 68 (15.9)
No 359 (84.1)

n, absolute frequency; %, relative frequency; MW, Brazilian minimum wage.

The distribution of the observed aspects of BF and association with pacifier use and/or bottle-feeding is shown in Table 3. The aspects that showed a higher percentage classified as poor in the total sample were the sucking behavior (22.5%) and position (22.2%). The group of babies who used pacifiers and/or were bottle-fed showed higher poor scores for all five BF aspects analyzed (p < 0.001), with emphasis on sucking behavior; almost 50% of the babies in this group presented poor scores in the latter aspect.

Table 3 Distribution of breastfeeding evaluation criteria between groups with or without pacifier use and/or bottle-feeding. 

Variables Total Pacifier use and/or bottle feeding pa
Yes No
n (%) n (%) n (%)
Mother/baby position <0.001
Good 231 (54.1) 54 (42.5) 177 (59.0)
Fair 101 (23.7) 29 (22.8) 72 (24.0)
Poor 95 (22.2) 44 (34.7) 51 (17.0)
Affectivity <0.001
Good 358 (83.8) 86 (67.7) 272 (90.7)
Fair 57 (13.3) 35 (27.6) 22 (7.3)
Poor 12 (2.8) 6 (4.7) 6 (2.0)
Sucking behavior <0.001
Good 219 (51.3) 41 (32.3) 178 (59.3)
Fair 112 (26.2) 23 (18.1) 89 (29.7)
Poor 96 (22.5) 63 (49.6) 33 (11.0)
Baby's response <0.001
Good 374 (87.6) 95 (74.8) 279 (93.0)
Fair 38 (8.9) 23 (18.1) 15 (5.0)
Poor 15 (3.5) 9 (7.1) 6 (2.0)
Breast anatomy <0.001
Good 391 (91.6) 106 (83.5) 285 (95.0)
Fair 20 (4.7) 9 (7.1) 11 (3.7)
Poor 16 (3.7) 12 (9.4) 4 (1.3)

n, absolute frequency; %, relative frequency.

aChi-squared test.

Moreover, the influence of independent variables on the number of unfavorable behaviors observed during BF (Table 4) was tested. It was observed that the increase in the baby's age, number of children, information on BF, and previous experience of BF were factors that reduced some unfavorable aspects of BF (negative β, p < 0.05).

Table 4 Simple and multivariate linear regression analysis of factors associated with the number of unfavorable behaviors observed during breastfeeding. 

Independent variables Dependent variables (number of unfavorable behaviors)
Mother/baby position Affectivity Sucking behavior Baby's responses Breast anatomy
β (p-value) β (p-value) β (p-value) β (p-value) β (p-value)
Baby's age (days) -0.01 (0.011) 0.00 (0.186) -0.01 (0.023) -0.01 (0.002) -0.01 (0.001)
Maternal age (years) -0.01 (0.150) 0.00 (0.372) 0.02 (0.129) 0.00 (0.507) 0.00 (0.193)
Mother's number of children 0.27 (0.035) -0.01 (0.743) 0.21 (0.109) 0.00 (0.985) 0.00 (0.992)
Information on breastfeeding (no = 0; yes = 1) -0.40 (0.081) -0.13 (0.039) -0.35 (0.021) -0.27 (0.034) -0.09 (0.068)
Previous breastfeeding experience (no = 0; yes = 1) -0.34 (0.147) 0.00 (0.883) -0.52 (0.035) -0.20 (0.124) -0.10 (0.064)
Bottle-feeding (no = 0; yes = 1) 0.79 (<0.001) 0.25 (<0.001) 1.59 (<0.001) 0.69 (<0.001) 0.22 (<0.001)
Pacifier use (no = 0; yes = 1) 0.50 (0.040) 0.25 (<0.001) 0.81 (0.001) 0.35 (0.011) 0.08 (0.135)
Multiple R2 (p-value) 0.08 (<0.001) 0.11 (<0.001) 0.19 (<0.001) 0.16 (<0.001) 0.17 (<0.001)

β, coefficient of regression; R2, coefficient of determination.Statistically significant measurements indicated in bold.

Regarding the association between pacifier use and bottle-feeding and unfavorable BF behaviors, the main objective of this study, the analysis showed that bottle-feeding increased the number of negative behaviors for all five BF aspects investigated, while the use of pacifiers also was associated with an increase in four aspects, although at lower values when compared with bottle-feeding. The multivariate analysis suggested that sucking behavior was the aspect most often influenced by the variables included in the model (R2 = 0.19, p < 0.001).

Discussion

The main findings of this study suggest that infants who use pacifiers and/or are bottle-fed have a higher frequency of indicators of BF difficulties when compared with those who do not use these devices. Furthermore, bottle-feeding was associated with a significant increase in unfavorable behaviors for all five aspects of BF assessed, while pacifier use was associated with an increase in negative behaviors observed for all BF aspects but breast anatomy.

In the present study, the aspects most often affected by bottle-feeding were the mother/baby position and breast suction. The authors of a longitudinal study that evaluated BF at the maternity hospital and at 30 days also suggested that bottle-feeding influences the BF technique, emphasizing the causality direction, since the worsening of the indicators related to the positioning and the latching in the group of infants who were bottle-fed occurred only in the second assessment time.21 This interaction is supported by evidence that demonstrates that bottle-feeding interferes with the orofacial development, mainly due to the dysfunction of position and muscle action of lips and tongue.13-15

Additionally, infants receiving mixed feeding (breast and bottle) position the tongue as a piston when sucking the breast, a behavior that is common when sucking the bottle, but not when sucking the breast (represented by undulatory movements), emphasizing the muscle pattern change after the introduction of the bottle.22

The association of bottle-feeding with negative behaviors regarding breast anatomy can be explained mainly by the presence of mammillary traumas,23 which together with the inadequate latching and position, may favor irregular and insufficient milk extraction.24 Breast problems such as those indicated in the breast anatomy assessment form (e.g., abrasions and fissures), are also commonly reported as risk factors for early weaning.25

In the present study, pacifier use increased the number of unfavorable behaviors regarding the aspects of the mother/baby position, affectivity, baby's response, and sucking behaviors. Kronborg and Væth26 also observed that the use of pacifiers was associated with an inefficient BF technique, especially regarding the latching and position aspects. The results of this study corroborate the hypothesis that the use of artificial nipples may imply unfavorable behaviors to milk withdrawal from the mother's breast, causing complications for the baby's oral skills.

Oral dysfunction in healthy neonates is indicated as one of the factors that interferes with the onset of lactation.27 The increase in the number of negative behaviors associated with affectivity and the baby's response observed in the present study can be explained by evidence suggesting that the use of pacifiers decreases milk production, since babies request the breast less often, causing lesions to the mother due to inadequate latching, which even interferes with their own weight gain,14 a fact that may increase the risk of early weaning.9

It is worth mentioning that most babies in this study were assessed during the period of BF onset or stabilization, which occurs in the first weeks of life and are crucial for the overcoming of difficulties associated with the correct latching technique. Healthy full-term infants are able to locate the nipple even without assistance when placed at the breast or on the mother's abdomen. In this process, the correct sucking pattern is necessary to ensure that the child has a good configuration of the oral components to facilitate milk descent,28 since the babies show different sucking patterns depending on the type of nipple or on whether or not food is offered to them.29

Some procedures used in this study are noteworthy. For instance, the choice of the UNICEF/WHO data collection form, a measure used due to its broad spectrum of observable attitudes, thus providing a better picture of BF. Furthermore, this tool is used to train health teams in units accredited as "Baby-Friendly."19 Another positive point was the calculation of the representative sample size for the São Luís Health District, which allows inferring the results observed for this population. A study limitation was its cross-sectional design, which does not allow excluding the reverse-causality bias; however, França et al.21 had already suggested, in a longitudinal study, that the use of bottle-feeding influences the BF technique, not the opposite, which was used in the present study.

The results of this study indicate that babies who used pacifiers and/or were bottle-fed showed a deficit in the aspects considered adequate for the practice of ideal BF, especially regarding the aspects of suction, mother/baby position, affectivity, and baby responses to the breast. New studies should be planned for new approaches to the subject, using longitudinal designs and tools that evaluate oral dysfunction and quantifying the time of pacifier use and bottle-feeding.

Moreover, studies indicate that health education, advice provided by professionals, and management assistance promoted by health professionals result in a better BF practice.29 Thus, it is important that educational actions be directed to these objectives, aiming to preventing problems related to BF.

Please cite this article as: Batista CL, Ribeiro VS, Nascimento MD, Rodrigues VP. Association between pacifier use and bottle-feeding and unfavorable behaviors during breastfeeding. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2018;94:596-601.

☆☆Study carried out at Universidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA), University Hospital, São Luís, MA, Brazil.

Acknowledgments

To all the mothers who voluntarily participated in this research. To Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal do Maranhão (HUUFMA) for the logistic support.

References

1 World Health Organization (WHO). Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices. WHO; 2008. [ Links ]

2 Victora C, Bahl R, Barros A, França G, Horton S, Krasevec J, et al. Breastfeeding in the 21st century: epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet. 2016;387:475-90. [ Links ]

3 Cai X, Wardlaw T, Brown D. Global trends in exclusive breastfeeding. Int Breastfeed J. 2012;7:12. [ Links ]

4 Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde. Departamento de Ações Programáticas Estratégicas. II pesquisa de prevalência de aleitamento materno nas capitais brasileiras e Distrito Federal. Editora do Ministério da Saúde. Brasília: Editora do Ministério da Saúde; 2009. [ Links ]

5 Smith HA, Becker GE. Early additional food and fluids for healthy breastfed fullterm healthy infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;8:CD006462. [ Links ]

6 Boccolini CS, Carvalho ML, Oliveira MI. Factors associated with exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months of life in Brazil: a systematic review. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;:49. [ Links ]

7 Brown C, Dodds L, Legge A, Bryanton J, Semenic S. Factors influencing the reasons why mothers stop breastfeeding. Can J Public Health. 2014;105:179-85. [ Links ]

8 Kair L, Colaizy T. Association between in-hospital pacifier use and breastfeeding continuation and exclusivity: neonatal intensive care unit admission as a possible effect modifier. Breastfeed Med. 2017;12:12-9. [ Links ]

9 Buccini G, Pérez-Escamilla R, Paulino L, Araújo C, Venancio S. Pacifier use and interruption of exclusive breastfeeding: systematic review and meta-analysis. Matern Child Nutr. 2016;13:e12384. [ Links ]

10 Buccini G, Pérez-Escamilla R, Venancio S. Pacifier use and exclusive breastfeeding in Brazil. J Hum Lact. 2016;32. NP52-60. [ Links ]

11 Rigotti R, Oliveira M, Boccolini C. Association between the use of a baby's bottle and pacifier and the absence of breastfeeding in the second six months of life. Cien Saude Colet. 2015;20:1235-44. [ Links ]

12 Neifert M, Lawrence R, Seacat J. Nipple confusion: toward a formal definition. J Pediatr. 1995;126:S125-9. [ Links ]

13 Pires S, Giugliani E, Caramez da Silva F. Influence of the duration of breastfeeding on quality of muscle function during mastication in preschoolers: a cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1-6. [ Links ]

14 Sánchez-Molins M, Grau Carbó J, Lischeid Gaig C, Ustrell Torrent J. Comparative study of the craniofacial growth depending on the type of lactation received. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2010;11:87-92. [ Links ]

15 Gomes C, Trezza E, Murade E, Padovani C. Surface electromyography of facial muscles during natural and artificial feeding of infants. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2006;82:103-9. [ Links ]

16 Jaafar SH, Ho JJ, Jahanfar S, Angolkar M. Effect of restricted pacifier use in breastfeeding term infants for increasing duration of breastfeeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;8:CD007202. [ Links ]

17 O'Connor N, Tanabe K, Siadaty M, Hauck F. Pacifiers and breastfeeding: a systematic review. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163:378-82. [ Links ]

18 Moon R. T ask Force On Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. SIDS and other sleep-related infant deaths: evidence base for 2016 updated recommendations for a safe infant sleeping environment. Pediatrics. 2016;138:e20162940. [ Links ]

19 World Health Organization, UNICEF. Protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding: the special role of maternity services. Geneva: WHO; 1989. [ Links ]

20 Carvalhaes MAdBL, Corrêa CR. Identification of difficulties at the beginning of breastfeeding by means of protocol application. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2003;79:13-20. [ Links ]

21 França MC, Giugliani ER, Oliveira LDd, Weigert EM, Santo LCdE, Kohler CV, et al. Bottle feeding during the first month of life: determinants and effect on breastfeeding technique. Rev Saude Publica. 2008;42:607-14. [ Links ]

22 Righard L. Are breastfeeding problems related to incorrect breastfeeding technique and the use of pacifiers and bottles?. Birth. 1998;25:40-4. [ Links ]

23 Dias J, Vieira T, Vieira G. Factors associated to nipple trauma in lactation period: a systematic review. Rev Bras Saude Mater Infant. 2017;17:27-42. [ Links ]

24 Valério KD, Araújo CM, Coutinho SB. Influence of oral dysfunction on full-term newborn on the beginning of lactation. Rev CEFAC. 2010;12:441-53. [ Links ]

25 Balogun OO, O'Sullivan EJ, McFadden A, Ota E, Gavine A, Garner CD, et al. Interventions for promoting the initiation of breastfeeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD001688. [ Links ]

26 Kronborg H, Vaeth M. How are effective breastfeeding technique and pacifier use related to breastfeeding problems and breastfeeding duration?. Birth. 2009;36:34-42. [ Links ]

27 Vieira TO, Vieira GO, de Oliveira NF, Mendes CM, Giugliani ER, Silva LR. Duration of exclusive breastfeeding in a Brazilian population: new determinants in a cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:175. [ Links ]

28 Neifert MR. Breastmilk transfer: positioning, latch-on, and screening for problems in milk transfer. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2004;47:656-75. [ Links ]

29 Sakalidis VS, Williams TM, Garbin CP, Hepworth AR, Hartmann PE, Paech MJ, et al. Ultrasound imaging of infant sucking dynamics during the establishment of lactation. J Hum Lact. 2013;29:205-13. [ Links ]

Received: April 10, 2017; Accepted: September 27, 2017; pub: November 12, 2017

* Corresponding author. E-mail:christyann.batista@huufma.br (C.L. Batista).

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Creative Commons License This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivative License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited and the work is not changed in any way.