Affiliation:
1. Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Northeastern University, Boston, MA
2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA
Abstract
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.
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Subject
Speech and Hearing,Linguistics and Language,Developmental and Educational Psychology,Otorhinolaryngology
Cited by
19 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献