PURPOSE: Check if the type of nozzle, orthodontic or conventional, of pacifier and bottle have any influence on the changes found in the stomatognathic system caused by the maintenance of the sucking habit. Research Strategies: Through a systematic literature review with meta-analysis, performed from the databases Lilacs, Medline and Embase and Scholar Google, with the following key words in Portuguese and English: "malocclusion" + "Pacifiers "; "Malocclusion" + "Bottle Feeding"; "Malocclusion" + "Bottle feeding" beyond words "Orthodontic Beak" + "Conventional Beak". SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that presented in their methods to compare groups who used pacifiers and/or bottle with conventional nozzle with groups using orthodontic nipple without temporal delimitation. DATA ANALYSIS: The analysis of the article in its entirety was performed systematically, ordering the relevant results in the following categories: objective, method-case studies and evaluation, results, and conclusion. RESULTS: Found 1,041 jobs, from the period 1969 to 2013, 848 jobs were excluded based on the exclusion criteria and another 174 that were repetitions. A total of 19 articles were read in full of which 4 articles met the proposed inclusion criteria, and three studies were included in the meta-analysis. These results show that there are no significant differences between the orthodontic and conventional nozzles on the implications of the stomatognathic system. CONCLUSION: There is no way to conclude that there are differences as to the consequences to the stomatognathic system caused by conventional nozzles and orthodontic pacifier/bottle.
PURPOSE: Check if the type of nozzle, orthodontic or conventional, of pacifier and bottle have any influence on the changes found in the stomatognathic system caused by the maintenance of the sucking habit. Research Strategies: Through a systematic literature review with meta-analysis, performed from the databases Lilacs, Medline and Embase and Scholar Google, with the following key words in Portuguese and English: "malocclusion" + "Pacifiers "; "Malocclusion" + "Bottle Feeding"; "Malocclusion" + "Bottle feeding" beyond words "Orthodontic Beak" + "Conventional Beak". SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that presented in their methods to compare groups who used pacifiers and/or bottle with conventional nozzle with groups using orthodontic nipple without temporal delimitation. DATA ANALYSIS: The analysis of the article in its entirety was performed systematically, ordering the relevant results in the following categories: objective, method-case studies and evaluation, results, and conclusion. RESULTS: Found 1,041 jobs, from the period 1969 to 2013, 848 jobs were excluded based on the exclusion criteria and another 174 that were repetitions. A total of 19 articles were read in full of which 4 articles met the proposed inclusion criteria, and three studies were included in the meta-analysis. These results show that there are no significant differences between the orthodontic and conventional nozzles on the implications of the stomatognathic system. CONCLUSION: There is no way to conclude that there are differences as to the consequences to the stomatognathic system caused by conventional nozzles and orthodontic pacifier/bottle.