ZWR - Das Deutsche Zahnärzteblatt 2020; 129(06): 256-260
DOI: 10.1055/a-0715-3903

Auswirkungen eines Schnullers mit besonders dünnem Saugerhals auf die Okklusion im Milchgebiss – Ergebnisse einer randomisierten klinischen Studie

Occlusal Changes in the Primary Dentition Caused by a Thin-Neck Pacifier (TNP) – Results of a Randomized Clinical Study
Yvonne Wagner
Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnheilkunde und Kinderzahnheilkunde am Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena
Roswitha Heinrich-Weltzien
Poliklinik für Präventive Zahnheilkunde und Kinderzahnheilkunde am Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena
› Author Affiliations


Ziel Evaluierung der Auswirkungen eines Schnullers mit besonders dünnem Saugerhals auf die Okklusion im Milchgebiss bei Kindern mit zuvor diagnostiziertem frontal offenen Biss (FOB) und vergrößertem Overjet (horizontalem Überbiss).

Methoden Durchführung einer prospektiven randomisierten klinischen Studie in der Abteilung für Präventive Zahnheilkunde und Kinderzahnheilkunde am Universitätsklinikum Jena, Deutschland. 86 Kleinkinder (Durchschnittsalter 20,3 Monate) mit Schnuller-assoziiertem offenen Biss oder Overjet von ≥ 2 mm wurden randomisiert einer von 3 Gruppen zugewiesen: Gruppe I (n = 28), Interventionsgruppe, Umstellung auf Schnuller mit besonders dünnem Saugerhals; Gruppe II (n = 30), Kontrollgruppe, Weiterverwendung des bisherigen Schnullers (konventioneller oder physiologischer Schnuller); und Gruppe III (n = 28), Interventionsgruppe, Goldstandard, Abgewöhnung des Schnullers. Die Kinder wurden über einen Zeitraum von 12 Monaten beobachtet.

Ergebnisse Nach 12 Monaten wurden die Daten von 63 Kindern (mit einem Durchschnittsalter von 33,1 Monaten) analysiert (I: n = 24; II: n = 22; III: n = 17). Dabei zeigte sich zwischen den Gruppen ein signifikanter Unterschied in Bezug auf Overjet und Overbite. Kinder, die den Schnuller mit besonders dünnem Saugerhals verwendeten, hatten signifikant bessere Ergebnisse bezüglich Overjet und Overbite als Kinder mit konventionellem oder physiologischem Schnuller. Kinder, denen der Schnuller abgewöhnt worden war, wiesen die besten Messergebnisse auf.

Schlussfolgerung Die Verwendung eines Schnullers mit besonders dünnem Saugerhals resultierte im Vergleich zur weiterführenden Benutzung eines konventionellen oder physiologischen Schnullers in besseren klinischen Messergebnissen für Overjet und Overbite.


Aim To evaluate the effect of a thin-neck pacifier (TNP) on occlusal characteristics in the primary dentition.

Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Preventive and Paediatric Dentistry, Jena University Hospital, Germany. 86 children (mean age 20.3 months) with a previously diagnosed pacifier-associated anterior open bite (AOB) and/or increased overjet ≥ 2 mm were randomly assigned to three groups: group I (n = 28), intervention group using a TNP; group II (n = 30), control group, using the initial conventional or physiological pacifier; and group III (n = 28), intervention group, gold standard, weaned off pacifier. Subjects were observed over a period of 12 months.

Results Data for 63 children (mean age 33.1 months) were analyzed (I: n = 24; II: n = 22; III: n = 17). Children in group I who had used the TNP showed statistically significant better results regarding overjet and overbite compared to children with continuing use of conventional or physiological pacifiers. The best clinical measurements were observed in group III, children, who were weaned off their pacifier.

Conclusion Children who had used the TNP showed better occlusal characteristics in the primary dentition (clinical measurements regarding overjet and overbite) compared to children with continuing use of conventional or physiological pacifiers.

Publication History

Article published online:
23 June 2020

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

  • Literatur

  • 1 Krishna RG, Saritha V, Suryaprakash VN. A study to determine the prevalence of malocclusion in primary dentition in suburban population in Chennai. Orthodontic Cyber Journal 2013; 5: 1-58
  • 2 American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry. Guideline on management of the developing dentition and occlusion in paediatric dentistry. 2014. Im Internet:
  • 3 Proffit WR. The Etiology of orthodontic Problems. In: Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. eds. Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2012: 114-146
  • 4 Katri KN, Raija L, Vuokko L. et al. Occurence of malocclusion and need of orthodontic treatment in early mixed dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 631-638
  • 5 Malandris M, Mahoney EK. Aetiology, diagnosis and treatment of posterior cross-bites in the primary dentition. Int J Paediatr Dent 2004; 14: 155-166
  • 6 Dimberg L, Arnrup K, Bondemark L. The impact of malocclusion on the quality of life among children and adolescents: a systematic review of quantitative studies. Eur J Orthod 2014; 11: cju046
  • 7 Carvalho AC, Paiva SM, Scarpelli AC. et al. Prevalence of malocclusion in primary dentition in a population-based sample of Brazilian preschool children. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2011; 12: 107-111
  • 8 Dimberg L, Lannartsson B, Söderfeldt B. et al. Malocclusion in children at 3 and 7 years of age: a longitudinal study. Eur J Orthod 2011; DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr110.
  • 9 Warren JJ, Bishara SE. Duration of nutritive and nonnutritive sucking behaviors and their effects on the dental arches in the primary dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121: 347-356
  • 10 Wagner Y, Heinrich-Weltzien R. Occlusal characteristics in 3-year-old children – results of a birth cohort study. BMC Oral Health 2015; 15: 94 doi:10.1186/s12903-015-0080-0
  • 11 Sexton S, Natale R. Risks and benefits of pacifiers. Am Fam Physician 2009; 79: 681-685
  • 12 American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry. Guideline on Management of the Developing Dentition and Occlusion in Paediatric Dentistry. 2014. Im Internet:
  • 13 Poyak J. Effects of pacifiers on early oral development. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 2006; 17: 13-16
  • 14 Silva M, Manton D. Oral Habits-Part 1: The Dental Effects and Management of Nutritive and Non-nutritive Sucking. J Dent Child 2014; 81: 133-139
  • 15 Nihi VSC, Maciel SM, Jarrus ME. et al. Pacifier-sucking habit duration and frequency on occlusal and myofunctional alterations in preschool children. Braz Oral Res 2015; 29: 1-7
  • 16 Warren JJ, Bishara SE, Steinbock KL. et al. Effects of oral habitsʼ duration on dental characteristics in the primary dentition. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 132: 1685-1693
  • 17 Viggiano D, Fasano D, Monaco G. et al. Breastfeeding, bottle feeding, and non-nutritive sucking; effects on occlusion in the deciduous dentition. Arch Dis Child 2004; 89: 1121-1123
  • 18 Duncan K, McNamara C, Ireland AJ. et al. Sucking habits in childhood and the effects on the primary dentition: findings of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and Childhood. Int J Paediatr Dent 2008; 18: 178-188
  • 19 Aznar T, Galan AF, Marin I. et al. Dental arch diameters and relationships to oral habits. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 441-445
  • 20 Katz CRT, Rosenblatt A, Gondim PPC. Nonnutritive sucking habits in Brazilian children: effects on deciduous dentition and relationship with facial morphology. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 53-57
  • 21 Farsi NMA, Salama FS, Pedo C. Sucking habits in Saudi children: prevalance, contributing factors, and effects on the primary dentition. Pediatr Dent 1997; 19: 28-33
  • 22 Gois EGO, Ribeiro HC, Vale MPP. et al. Influence of nonnutritive sucking habits, breathing pattern and adenoid size on the development of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 647-654
  • 23 Varas VF, Gil BG, Izquierdo FG. Prevalence of childhood oral habits and their influence in primary dentition. Rev Pediatr Aten Primaria 2012; 14: 13-20
  • 24 Bishara SE, Warren JJ, Broffit B. et al. Changes in the prevalence of nonnutritive sucking patterns in the first 8 years of life. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 31-36
  • 25 Warren JJ, Slayton RL, Bishara SE. et al. Effects of non-nutritive sucking habits on occlusal characteristics in the mixed dentition. Pediatr Dent 2005; 27: 445-450
  • 26 Zimmer S, Barthel CR, Ljubicic R. et al. Efficacy of a novel pacifier in the prevention of anterior open bite. Pediatr Dent 2011; 33: 52-55
  • 27 Zardetto CG, Rodrigues CRM, Stefani FM. Effects of different pacifiers on the primary dentition and oral myofunctional structures or preschool children. Pediatric Dent 2002; 24: 552-560
  • 28 Adair SM, Milano M, Lorenzo I. et al. Effects of current and former pacifier use on the dentition of 24- to 59-month-old children. Pediatr Dent 1995; 17: 437-444
  • 29 Adair SM, Milano M, Dushko JC. Evaluation of the effects of orthodontic pacifiers on the primary dentitions of 24- to 59-month-old children: preliminary study. Pediatr Dent 1992; 14: 13-18
  • 30 Turgeon-OʼBrien H, Lachapelle D, Gagnon PF. et al. Nutritive and nonnutritive sucking habits: a review. ASDC J Dent Child 1996; 63: 321-327
  • 31 Melsen B, Stensgaard K, Pederson J. Sucking habits and their influence on swallowing pattern and prevalence of malocclusion. Europ J Orthodont 1979; 1: 271-280
  • 32 Nelson A. A comprehensive review of evidence and current recommendations related to pacifier usage. J Pediatr Nursing 2012; 27: 690-699
  • 33 Wagner Y, Heinrich-Weltzien R. Effect of a thin-neck pacifier on primary dentition: a randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 2016; 19: 127-136 doi:10.1111/ocr.12126
  • 34 Baume L, Horowitz H, Summers C. et al. A method for measuring occlusal traits. Int Dent J 1973; 23: 530-537
  • 35 Birardi V. The morphology of the pacifier in the treatment of open bite for a three-year-old child. Clinical Case. Italian Dent J 2012; 9: 28