Effect of different pacifier designs on orofacial tissues: a computational simulation comparative study

Abstract

Objectives: This study analyzes the effects of different pacifiers on the malocclusion formation, emphasizing the significance of pacifier design. Based on a computational model of pacifier sucking developed by the authors, the study provides insights dependent on pacifier geometry.

Materials and methods: A computational model was developed, consisting of the palate, pacifier, and tongue, including six tissues: mucosa, cortical bone, cancellous bone, and alveolar bone, periodontal ligament, and teeth. Three types of pacifiers were analyzed: orthodontic, standard, and conventional. The geometries were obtained from manufacturers and modeled using Blender™ software. The model was implemented in the OpenFOAM^® library to calculate tooth displacement, exerted force, and stress distribution on the palate tissues.

Results: The results provide a clear comparison between pacifier models, showing that well-designed pacifiers, Orthodontic (OP) and Standard (SP), are significantly less harmful to oral structures than the Conventional Pacifier (CP). OP and SP reduced the volume of the region subjected to high von Mises stress (0.05–0.01 MPa) on the palatal mucosa by 95.70% and 93.95%, respectively, when compared to CP. Furthermore, they led to a maximum reduction in mean tooth displacement of 79% (OP) and 75% (SP). These findings indicate that the pacifier design can significantly impact mechanical loading on the palate and teeth, reducing the risk of developmental oral malocclusions.

Conclusions: This study underscores the importance of pacifier design in mitigating potential adverse effects on orofacial development.

Clinical evidence: There is a growing need for pacifiers designed based on scientific evidence to reduce the risks of orofacial deformation resulting from non-nutritive sucking. The computational approach introduced provides valuable insights that can inform the design of improved pacifiers aimed at minimizing risks associated with non-nutritive sucking habits. It is hoped that this method will guide the future development of more effective pacifiers, reducing potential adverse effects on orofacial structures.

Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-025-06428-9.

Keywords: Computational modeling; Ergonomic design; Malocclusions; OpenFOAM; Pacifier; solids4Foam.

Fig. 1

3D outer full computational mesh of the orthodontic pacifier model, generated using the cfMesh tool [54] (left), and cut view showing the defined cell sets (tissue regions) (right)

Fig. 2

3D complete models of the tested pacifiers: a. Orthodontic Pacifier; b. Standard Pacifier; c. Conventional Pacifier

Fig. 3

Nozzles of the different studied pacifiers employed for the computational models: a. Orthodontic Pacifier; b. Standard Pacifier; c. Conventional Pacifier

Fig. 4

Section of the tooth mesh involved by the periodontal ligament and respective individual force calculation

Fig. 5

Stress distribution on the mucosa surface induced by the tested pacifiers: a. Orthodontic Pacifier; b. Standard Pacifier; c. Conventional Pacifier

Fig. 6

Cut view of the stress distribution in the internal tissues of the palate induced by the tested pacifiers: a. Cut plane; b. Orthodontic Pacifier; c. Standard Pacifier; d. Conventional Pacifier

Fig. 7

Evolution of the force magnitude exerted by the pacifiers on the palate over two suction cycles

Fig. 8

Evolution of the maximum displacement of dental crowns calculated over two suction cycles for a) Right Central Incisor; b) Left Central Incisor; c) Right Lateral Incisor; d) Left Lateral Incisor; e) Right First Molar; and f) Left First Molar

Fig. 9

Maximum displacement of the crown of the central incisor in the three pacifiers models at 0, 0.39 and 0.78 s with scale factors of 1x and 1000x

Fig. 10

Evolution of the force magnitude exerted on all dental crowns over two suction cycles: a) Right Central Incisor; b) Left Central Incisor; c) Right Lateral Incisor; d) Left Lateral Incisor; e) Right First Molar; and f) Left First Molar