Dataset Information

Palatal development of preterm and low birthweight infants compared to term infants - What do we know? Part 2: The palate of the preterm/low birthweight infant.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Well-designed clinical studies on the palatal development in preterm and low birthweight infants are desirable because the literature is characterized by contradictory results. It could be shown that knowledge about 'normal' palatal development is still weak as well (Part 1). The objective of this review is therefore to contribute a fundamental analysis of methodologies, confounding factors, and outcomes of studies on palatal development in preterm and low birthweight infants.

Methods

An electronic literature search as well as hand searches were performed based on Cochrane search strategies including sources of more than a century in English, German, and French. Original data were recalculated from studies which primarily dealt with both preterm and term infants. The extracted data, especially those from non-English paper sources, were provided unfiltered for comparison.

Results

Seventy-eight out of 155 included articles were analyzed for palatal morphology of preterm infants. Intubation, feeding tubes, feeding mode, tube characteristics, restriction of oral functions, kind of diet, cranial form and birthweight were seen as causes contributing to altered palatal morphology. Changes associated with intubation concern length, depth, width, asymmetry, crossbite, and contour of the palate. The phenomenon 'grooving' has also been described as a complication associated with oral intubation. However, this phenomenon suffers from lack of a clear-cut definition. Head flattening, pressure from the oral tube, pathologic or impaired tongue function, and broadening of the alveolar ridges adjacent to the tube have been raised as causes of 'grooving'. Metrically, the palates of intubated preterm infants remain narrower, which has been examined up to the age of the late mixed dentition.

Conclusion

There is no evidence that would justify the exclusion of any of the raised causes contributing to palatal alteration. Thus, early orthodontic and logopedic control of formerly orally intubated preterm infants is recommended, as opposed to non-intubated infants. From the orthodontic point of view, nasal intubation should be favored. The role that palatal protection plates and pressure-dispersing pads for the head have in palatal development remains unclear.

SUBMITTER: Hohoff A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1298321 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Palatal development of preterm and low birthweight infants compared to term infants - What do we know? Part 2: The palate of the preterm/low birthweight infant.

Hohoff Ariane A Rabe Heike H Ehmer Ulrike U Harms Erik E

Head & face medicine 20051028

<h4>Background</h4>Well-designed clinical studies on the palatal development in preterm and low birthweight infants are desirable because the literature is characterized by contradictory results. It could be shown that knowledge about 'normal' palatal development is still weak as well (Part 1). The objective of this review is therefore to contribute a fundamental analysis of methodologies, confounding factors, and outcomes of studies on palatal development in preterm and low birthweight infants. ...[more]

PMID: 16270909

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe evidence on prematurity as 'a priori' a risk for palatal disturbances that increase the need for orthodontic or orthognathic treatment is still weak. Further well-designed clinical studies are needed. The objective of this review is to provide a fundamental analysis of methodologies, confounding factors, and outcomes of studies on palatal development. One focus of this review is the analysis of studies on the palate of the term newborn, since knowing what is 'normal' is a precondition of being able to assess abnormalities.MethodsA search profile based on Cochrane search strategies applied to 10 medical databases was used to identify existing studies. Articles, mainly those published before 1960, were identified from hand searches in textbooks, encyclopedias, reference lists and bibliographies. Sources in English, German, and French of more than a century were included. Data for term infants were recalculated if particular information about weight, length, or maturity was given. The extracted values, especially those from non-English paper sources, were provided unfiltered for comparison.ResultsThe search strategy yielded 182 articles, of which 155 articles remained for final analysis. Morphology of the term newborn's palate was of great interest in the first half of the last century. Two general methodologies were used to assess palatal morphology: visual and metrical descriptions. Most of the studies on term infants suffer from lack of reliability tests. The groove system was recognized as the distinctive feature of the infant palate. The shape of the palate of the term infant may vary considerably, both visually and metrically. Gender, race, mode of delivery, and nasal deformities were identified as causes contributing to altered palatal morphology. Until today, anatomical features of the newborn's palate are subject to a non-uniform nomenclature.ConclusionToday's knowledge of a newborn's 'normal' palatal morphology is based on non-standardized and limited methodologies for measuring a three-dimensional shape. This shortcoming increases bias and is the reason for contradictory research results, especially if pathologic conditions like syndromes or prematurity are involved. Adequate measurement techniques are needed and the 'normal palatal morphology' should be defined prior to new clinical studies on palatal development.

Project description:Are perinatal outcomes improved in singleton pregnancies resulting from fresh embryo transfers performed following unstimulated/natural cycle IVF (NCIVF) compared with stimulated IVF?Infants conceived by unstimulated/NCIVF have a lower risk of being low birthweight than infants conceived by stimulated IVF; however, this risk did not remain significant after adjusting for gestation age.Previous studies have shown that infants born after modified NCIVF have a higher average birthweight and are less likely to be low birthweight than those infants conceived with conventional stimulated IVF.Retrospective cohort study of singleton live births in non-smoking women undergoing fresh IVF-embryo transfer cycles from 2007 to 2013 in a single IVF center. The women were stratified by stimulated (n = 174) or unstimulated (n = 190) IVF exposure status. Unstimulated/NCIVF is defined as IVF without the use of exogenous gonadotrophins, and only includes the use of HCG to time oocyte retrieval.Demographic data including maternal age, BMI, infertility diagnosis and IVF cycle characteristics were collected. The perinatal outcomes used for comparison between the two study groups were length of gestation, birthweight, preterm delivery, very preterm delivery, low birthweight, small for gestational age and large for gestational age.Although women in the NCIVF group were older than those in the stimulated group (35.0 versus 34.2 years, P < 0.05), parity and history of prior ART cycles were comparable between the groups. The mean birthweight was significantly higher in the NCIVF group by 163 g than in the stimulated group (3436 ± 420 g versus 3273 ± 574 g, P < 0.05). Consistent with this finding, there were also less low birthweight (<2500 g) infants in the NCIVF group versus stimulated group (1 versus 8.6%, P < 0.005). The reduction in risk for low birthweight in the NCIVF group remained significant after adjustment for maternal age, infertility diagnosis, ICSI, number of embryos transferred and blastocyst transfer (odds ratio (OR) 0.07; 95% CI 0.014-0.35). As NCIVF group had less preterm infants, additional adjustment for gestational age was performed and this showed a tendency towards lower risk of low birthweight in NCIVF (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-1.0). While gestational age at delivery was comparable between the groups, both preterm births (<37 weeks gestation) (31 versus 42%, P < 0.05) and very preterm births (<32 weeks gestation) (0.52 versus 6.3%, P < 0.005) were significantly reduced in the NCIVF group. However, after adjustment for potential confounders, the reduction in risk of preterm and very preterm delivery associated with the NCIVF group was no longer significant (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.48-2.5).Limitations of this study are the retrospective nature of the data collection and the lack of information about parental characteristics associated with birthweight.The improved perinatal outcomes following successful unstimulated/NCIVF suggest that this treatment should be considered as a viable option for infertile couples. NCIVF could reduce potential adverse perinatal outcomes such as low birthweight related to fresh embryo transfers performed following ovarian stimulation. The etiology of the improved perinatal outcomes following NCIVF needs to be explored further to determine if the improvement is derived from endometrial factors versus follicular/oocyte factors.The study was supported by the following grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NICHD K12HD047018 (W.M.), NICHD K12HD001271 (L.A.K.). The authors have no competing interests.

Project description:Previous reviews (2005 to 2009) on preterm infants given probiotics or prebiotics with breast milk or mixed feeds focused on prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis, sepsis and diarrhea. This review assessed if probiotics, prebiotics led to improved growth and clinical outcomes in formula fed preterm infants.Cochrane methodology was followed using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared preterm formula containing probiotic(s) or prebiotic(s) to conventional preterm formula in preterm infants. The mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for continuous outcomes, risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and a chi² test. An I² test assessed inconsistencies across studies. I²> 50% represented substantial heterogeneity.Four probiotics studies (N=212), 4 prebiotics studies (N=126) were included. Probiotics: There were no significant differences in weight gain (MD 1.96, 95% CI: -2.64 to 6.56, 2 studies, n=34) or in maximal enteral feed (MD 35.20, 95% CI: -7.61 to 78.02, 2 studies, n=34), number of stools per day increased significantly in probiotic group (MD 1.60, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.00, 1 study, n=20). Prebiotics: Galacto-oligosaccharide/Fructo-oligosaccharide (GOS/FOS) yielded no significant difference in weight gain (MD 0.04, 95% CI: -2.65 to 2.73, 2 studies, n=50), GOS/FOS yielded no significant differences in length gain (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.04, 2 studies, n=50). There were no significant differences in head growth (MD -0.01, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.00, 2 studies, n=76) or age at full enteral feed (MD -0.79, 95% CI: -2.20 to 0.61, 2 studies, n=86). Stool frequency increased significantly in prebiotic group (MD 0.80, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.1, 2 studies, n=86). GOS/FOS and FOS yielded higher bifidobacteria counts in prebiotics group (MD 2.10, 95% CI: 0.96 to 3.24, n=27) and (MD 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.68, n=56).There is not enough evidence to state that supplementation with probiotics or prebiotics results in improved growth and clinical outcomes in exclusively formula fed preterm infants.

Project description:UNLABELLED:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the composition and richness of bacterial communities associated with low-birthweight (LBW) infants in relation to host body site, individual, and age. Bacterial 16S rRNA genes from saliva samples, skin swabs, and stool samples collected on postnatal days 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 21 from six LBW (five premature) infants were amplified, pyrosequenced, and analyzed within a comparative framework that included analogous data from normal-birthweight (NBW) infants and healthy adults. We found that body site was the primary determinant of bacterial community composition in the LBW infants. However, site specificity depended on postnatal age: saliva and stool compositions diverged over time but were not significantly different until the babies were 15 days old. This divergence was primarily driven by progressive temporal turnover in the distal gut, which proceeded at a rate similar to that of age-matched NBW infants. Neonatal skin was the most adult-like in microbiota composition, while saliva and stool remained the least so. Compositional variation among infants was marked and depended on body site and age. Only the smallest, most premature infant received antibiotics during the study period; this heralded a coexpansion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and a novel Mycoplasma sp. in the oral cavity of this vaginally delivered, intubated patient. We conclude that concurrent molecular surveillance of multiple body sites in LBW neonates reveals a delayed compositional differentiation of the oral cavity and distal gut microbiota and, in the case of one infant, an abundant, uncultivated oral Mycoplasma sp., recently detected in human vaginal samples. IMPORTANCE:Complications of premature birth are the most common cause of neonatal mortality. Colonization by the indigenous microbiota, which begins at delivery, may predispose some high-risk newborns to invasive infection or necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), and protect others, yet neonatal microbiome dynamics are poorly understood. Here, we present the first cultivation-independent time series tracking microbiota assembly across multiple body sites in a synchronous cohort of hospitalized low-birthweight (LBW) neonates. We take advantage of archived samples and publically available sequence data and compare our LBW infant findings to those from normal-birthweight (NBW) infants and healthy adults. Our results suggest potential windows of opportunity for the dispersal of microbes within and between hosts and support recent findings of substantial baseline spatiotemporal variation in microbiota composition among high-risk newborns.

Project description:BackgroundOptimal feeding of very low birthweight (VLBW <1500 g)/very preterm (gestation <32 weeks) infants in resource-limited settings in sub-Saharan Africa (sSA) is critical to reducing high mortality and poor outcomes.ObjectiveTo review evidence on feeding of VLBW/very preterm infants relevant to sSA.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from inception to July 2019 to identify reviews of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of feeding VLBW/very preterm infants. We focused on interventions that are readily available in sSA. Primary outcomes were weight gain during hospital stay and time to achieve full enteral feeds (120 mL/kg/day). Secondary outcomes were growth, common morbidities, mortality, duration of hospital stay and cognitive development. Quality of evidence (QOE) was assessed using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2).ResultsEight systematic reviews were included. Higher feed volume of day 1 (80 mL/kg) reduced late-onset sepsis and time to full enteral feeds, and higher feed volume (up to 300 mL/kg/day) improved weight gain without adverse events (QOE: low-moderate). Rapid advancement of feeds (30-40 mL/kg/day) was not associated with harm. Breast milk fortification with energy and protein increased growth and with prebiotics increased growth and reduced duration of admission (QOE: low-very low) and did not result in harm. Evidence regarding feeding tube placement and continuous versus bolus feeds was insufficient to draw conclusions. We found no reviews meeting our selection criteria regarding when to start feeds, use of preterm formula, cup-and-spoon feeding or gravity versus push feeds and none of the reviews included trials from low-income countries of sSA.ConclusionsThe evidence base informing feeding of VLBW/very preterm babies in resource-limited settings in sSA is extremely limited. Pragmatic studies are needed to generate evidence to guide management and improve outcomes for these highly vulnerable infants.Prospero registration numberCRD42019140204.

Dataset Information

Palatal development of preterm and low birthweight infants compared to term infants - What do we know? Part 2: The palate of the preterm/low birthweight infant.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Palatal development of preterm and low birthweight infants compared to term infants - What do we know? Part 2: The palate of the preterm/low birthweight infant.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets