{"title":"Why do pacifiers/dummies have a protective effect in sudden infant death Syndrome? A new hypothesis","authors":"Paul N. Goldwater","doi":"10.1016/j.mehy.2024.111517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends pacifier/dummy use to help prevent sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). This recommendation is based on studies that have shown pacifier use reduces the risk of SIDS even under conditions regarded as increasing the risk of SIDS. Several unrelated mechanistic explanations have been used to explain this. These prior suggested mechanisms purported to underly the observed protective effect of pacifiers have not proven satisfactory and highlight the need for a more plausible explanation. Pacifier use is associated with increased salivary production. Saliva contains numerous antibacterial compounds that could provide a protective effect against bacterial colonisation. Infection is considered a key player in SIDS pathogenesis given that most SIDS risk factors relate to or align with infection, whereas mainstream research focusses on central homeostatic control of breathing, arousal and heart function. These, however, lack association with risk factors. Given infection is significant in the SIDS story, the increased production and antibacterial effect of saliva could provide an alternative mechanism worthy of consideration in the context of known preventable risk factors in the drive to reach a better understanding of SIDS pathogenesis and further decrease the incidence of SIDS.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":18425,"journal":{"name":"Medical hypotheses","volume":"193 ","pages":"Article 111517"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical hypotheses","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987724002603","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends pacifier/dummy use to help prevent sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). This recommendation is based on studies that have shown pacifier use reduces the risk of SIDS even under conditions regarded as increasing the risk of SIDS. Several unrelated mechanistic explanations have been used to explain this. These prior suggested mechanisms purported to underly the observed protective effect of pacifiers have not proven satisfactory and highlight the need for a more plausible explanation. Pacifier use is associated with increased salivary production. Saliva contains numerous antibacterial compounds that could provide a protective effect against bacterial colonisation. Infection is considered a key player in SIDS pathogenesis given that most SIDS risk factors relate to or align with infection, whereas mainstream research focusses on central homeostatic control of breathing, arousal and heart function. These, however, lack association with risk factors. Given infection is significant in the SIDS story, the increased production and antibacterial effect of saliva could provide an alternative mechanism worthy of consideration in the context of known preventable risk factors in the drive to reach a better understanding of SIDS pathogenesis and further decrease the incidence of SIDS.
期刊介绍:
Medical Hypotheses is a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences. It will publish interesting and important theoretical papers that foster the diversity and debate upon which the scientific process thrives. The Aims and Scope of Medical Hypotheses are no different now from what was proposed by the founder of the journal, the late Dr David Horrobin. In his introduction to the first issue of the Journal, he asks ''what sorts of papers will be published in Medical Hypotheses? and goes on to answer ''Medical Hypotheses will publish papers which describe theories, ideas which have a great deal of observational support and some hypotheses where experimental support is yet fragmentary''. (Horrobin DF, 1975 Ideas in Biomedical Science: Reasons for the foundation of Medical Hypotheses. Medical Hypotheses Volume 1, Issue 1, January-February 1975, Pages 1-2.). Medical Hypotheses was therefore launched, and still exists today, to give novel, radical new ideas and speculations in medicine open-minded consideration, opening the field to radical hypotheses which would be rejected by most conventional journals. Papers in Medical Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations.