Functional comparison of pacifiers using finite element analysis

Abstract

Background Pacifiers 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. Methods Nonlinear 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. Results Results 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. Conclusions Pacifiers 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.

Conformity between Pacifier Design and Palate Shape in Preterm and Term Infants Considering Age-Specific Palate Size, Facial Profile and Lip Thickness

“…One exception is a finite element analysis (FEA) study [ 37 ], in which a lip thickness of 6.6 mm was considered using a representative edentulous palate of unknown age. A recent FEA study considered a lip thickness of 5 mm at an angle of 5–10 degrees [ 38 ]. Our own results indicate an angle of 16.29 degrees.…”

“…As a result, the lateral tektal bulges and walls [ 40 ], in particular, are not supported. FEM studies show that in small nipple shapes, the load is concentrated on the central zone of the palate, which cannot guarantee the preservation of the transverse diameter of the premaxilla [ 38 , 41 ].…”

Advancing the assessment of pacifier effects with a novel computational method

“…The model had the capability to simulate the effects of any pacifier on orofacial structures, including displacement and loads experienced by the teeth due to pacifier sucking. Additionally, the computational model incorporated the consideration of negative intraoral pressure generated within the oral cavity [ 9 , 10 , 15 , 17 , 18 ] and tongue displacement [ 19 ]. For the studies conducted, two suction cycles were taken into consideration.…”

“…In two more recent studies [ 9 , 10 ] the computational models employed provided a more realistic representation of the interaction between the pacifier and palate during the sucking cycle. The objective of the first study [ 9 ] was to demonstrate that computational simulation could effectively characterize this interaction by calculating strain, stress, contact force, and contact area.…”

“…The results obtained from this study indicated that the proposed approach could be utilized in comparative studies to gain further insights into the effects of pacifiers on dental and facial development. The most recent study [ 10 ] aimed to follow the methodology proposed in the previous work [ 9 ] and compare different pacifier designs. The various pacifier designs were identified based on brand and size and positioned on an age-appropriate palate model.…”