The value of the clinical examination revisited

Not All Pacifiers Are Created Equal: A Mechanical Examination of Pacifiers and Their Influence on Suck Patterning

PURPOSE

Many pacifier companies advertise that their product is the "best choice" to support proper sucking, feeding, and dental development; however, very little evidence exists to support these claims. As the primary differences across pacifiers are structural and mechanical, the goals of this study were to measure such properties of commercially available pacifiers and to examine how these properties alter suck patterning in healthy, full-term infants.

METHOD

Seven commonly utilized pacifiers were mechanically tested for pull and compression stiffness levels and categorized into nipple shape types based on their aspect ratio. Next, 3 pacifiers (Soothie, GumDrop, and Freeflow) with the most salient differences in pull stiffness levels with 2 different pacifier nipple types were tested clinically on 16 full-term infants (≤ 6 months old) while measuring non-nutritive suck (NNS).

RESULTS

A repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significant differences between NNS burst duration (p = .002), NNS cycles per burst (p = .002), and NNS cycles per minute (p = .006) and pacifier type. With each significant dependent measure, pairwise comparisons showed that the GumDrop and Freeflow pacifiers differed significantly on these measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Pacifier compression, pull stiffness, and nipple shape type yield different NNS dynamics. These findings motivate further investigation into pacifier properties and suck patterning in young infants.

Early sucking and swallowing problems as predictors of neurodevelopmental outcome in children with neonatal brain injury: a systematic review

AIM

Early sucking and swallowing problems may be potential markers of neonatal brain injury and assist in identifying those infants at increased risk of adverse outcomes, but the relation between early sucking and swallowing problems and neonatal brain injury has not been established. The aim of the review was, therefore, to investigate the relation between early measures of sucking and swallowing and neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants diagnosed with neonatal brain injury and in infants born very preterm (<32wks) with very low birthweight (<1500g), at risk of neonatal brain injury.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review of English-language articles using CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE OVID (from 1980 to May 2011). Additional studies were identified through manual searches of key journals and the works of expert authors. Extraction of data informed an assessment of the level of evidence and risk of bias for each study using a predefined set of quality indicators.

RESULTS

A total of 394 abstracts were generated by the search but only nine studies met the inclusion criterion. Early sucking and swallowing problems were present in a consistent proportion of infants and were predictive of neurodevelopmental outcome in infancy in five of the six studies reviewed.

LIMITATIONS

The methodological quality of studies was variable in terms of research design, level of evidence (National Health and Medical Research Council levels II, III, and IV), populations studied, assessments used and the nature and timing of neurodevelopmental follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the results of this review, there is currently insufficient evidence to clearly determine the relation between early sucking and swallowing problems and neonatal brain injury. Although early sucking and swallowing problems may be related to later neurodevelopmental outcomes, further research is required to delineate their value in predicting later motor outcomes and to establish reliable measures of early sucking and swallowing function.