BackgroundNon-nutritive sucking habits may adversely affect the orofacial complex. This systematic literature review aimed to find scientific evidence on the effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures.MethodsA search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases was conducted to find all pertinent articles published from inception until February 2018, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the risk of bias judgements in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I).ResultsAmong the 2288 articles found, 17 articles met the selection criteria: seven prospective cohort studies, nine cross-sectional studies, and one randomized clinical trial. Using ROBINS-I, 12 studies were evaluated to have a serious overall risk of bias and five, a moderate one.These studies claimed a strong association between a pacifier sucking habit and the presence of an anterior open bite and posterior crossbite. Functional/orthodontic pacifiers were shown to cause significantly less open bites than the conventional ones.ConclusionsHigh level of evidence of the effect of sucking habits on orofacial structures is missing. The available studies show severe or moderate risk of bias; hence, the findings in the literature need to be very carefully evaluated.There is moderate evidence that the use of pacifier is associated with anterior open bite and posterior crossbite, thus affecting the harmonious development of orofacial structures.Functional/orthodontic pacifiers reduce the prevalence of open bite when compared to the conventional ones, but evidence is needed concerning the effects on posterior crossbite. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to further analyze the effects of functional/orthodontic and conventional pacifiers on orofacial structures.

Objective Conventional cephalometry is an inexpensive and well-established method for evaluating patients with dentofacial deformities. However, patients with major deformities, and in particular asymmetric cases are difficult to evaluate by conventional cephalometry. Both two- and three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) have been proposed to alleviate some of these difficulties. Only a few studies using metallic markers have indicated 3-D CT to be a useful diagnostic method, whereas no studies have evaluated the reliability of the anatomic cephalometric points used in 3-D CT. The aim of our study therefore was to compare the reliability of anatomic cephalometric points from conventional cephalograms and 3-D CT. Methods Nine human dry skulls were CT scanned. In addition standard lateral and frontal cephalograms were obtained. The CT scans were 3-D image reconstructed, and the cephalometric points were recorded as x, y, and z co-ordinates by two investigators. Computerized cephalometrics were performed on the lateral and frontal cephalograms. Intra- and interindividual variations were calculated for each method and tested for statistical significance. Results Lateral cephalogram measures were more reliable than 3-D CT, with interobserver variations less than 1 mm for most points compared to about 2 mm for 3-D CT. Lateral cephalometrics also showed significantly less interobserver variation for six variables. This was, however, less obvious when 3-D CT was compared to frontal cephalograms. Frontal cephalometrics showed significantly less interobserver variation for three of the investigated variables. Conclusions For standard lateral and frontal cephalometric points, there is no evidence that 3-D CT is more reliable than the conventional cephalometric methods in normal skull, and the benefit of 3-D CT cephalometric is indicated to be in the severe asymmetric craniofacial syndrome patients, as conventional cephalometrics is known to be inferior in these cases.

No abstract