Pacifier Usage Among Saudi Children: A Cross-Sectional Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
by
, , , , and
Sara M. Bagher
1
,
Logain Alattas
2,
Haneen Bakhaidar
1,
Najat M. Farsi
1,
Shahad N. Abudawood
1 and
Heba Jafar Sabbagh
1,* 1
Pediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80209, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
2
Tam Dental Clinic, Jeddah 23415, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2025, 13(15), 1935; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151935
Submission received: 17 June 2025
/
Revised: 23 July 2025
/
Accepted: 30 July 2025
/
Published: 7 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oral Medicine in Focus: Improving Diagnosis and Treatment Through Continued Education)
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Pacifier use in infants has both beneficial and harmful implications, and dipping pacifiers in sweeteners is used by some parents to soothe infants. This study aimed to assess pacifier usage among mothers in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and to examine its association with child demographics, maternal socioeconomic status (SES), and maternal knowledge of the risks associated with dipping pacifiers in sweeteners. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among mothers of healthy children aged 2 to 4 years during community-awareness events in Jeddah. Participants completed a validated Arabic questionnaire covering pacifier use patterns, feeding practices, SES background, and knowledge regarding the adverse effects of pacifier sweetening. Results: A total of 1438 mothers participated. The mean age of children was 34.3 ± 10.7 months, with 441 children (30.7%) reported as pacifier users. Among them, 202 (45.8%) used pacifiers both during the day and at night. Most children (35.6%) discontinued use between 4 and 6 months of age. Only 6.1% of mothers reported adding sweeteners to pacifiers. Pacifier usage was significantly higher among first-born children (37.6%, p < 0.001), those who received both bottle- and breastfeeding (65.5%, p < 0.001), and children enrolled in nursery (62.1%, p = 0.007). Most mothers (75.6%) were aware of the link between sweetened pacifiers and dental caries, and 69.4% of those who had this knowledge avoided giving their child a pacifier (p = 0.077). Conclusions: Birth order, feeding practices, and nursery attendance are key predictors of pacifier use. Enhancing parental awareness and education may support early interventions to promote healthier oral and feeding habits in young children.
1. Introduction
Non-nutritive sucking habits (NNSHs), such as pacifier usage and thumb or finger sucking, are common in babies and young children and naturally decline as they grow older. For some, this habit may persist for several years, increasing the risk of malocclusion in the primary dentition, which may carry over into the permanent teeth [1]. Pacifiers are commonly used to calm and soothe infants and toddlers, helping them fall asleep and reducing fussiness [2]. Pacifier usage can provide protection against sudden infant death syndrome, with studies suggesting up to 90% risk reduction, particularly when used during sleep [3,4]. While pacifiers have some advantages, there are several potential disadvantages to their prolonged and extensive use. It can lead to dental issues and malocclusion, such as increased overjet, anterior open bite, and/or a posterior crossbite [5]. The severity of the resulting malocclusion is influenced by the duration, frequency, and intensity of use [6]. Furthermore, dental malocclusion resulting from NNSHs can indirectly compromise periodontal health. Some reports consider malocclusion as a predisposing factor for dental caries and periodontal problems since tooth misalignment causes accumulation of bacterial plaque and hinders its removal and proper oral hygiene practices [7,8]. In addition, studies report that pacifier use may increase candida and lactobacilli, elevating the risk of oral infections and gingival inflammation [9,10]. Therefore, pacifiers should be disinfected regularly.
Moreover, parents play important roles in establishing dental care at home and maintaining oral hygiene for their young children. Pediatric dentists should counsel and provide anticipatory guidance regarding oral hygiene practices, including brushing twice a day, using an age-appropriate toothbrush and fluoridated toothpaste, along with the safety, benefits, and risks of using pacifiers to parents of infants and toddlers who choose to use them [11]. Multiple global organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) and American Academy of Family Physicians align in their recommendations and [12] support the parental decision to introduce the pacifier based on their preference and their child’s needs, but at the same time, they acknowledge the potential disadvantages of prolonged or excessive pacifier usage and provide guidelines on its use, emphasizing risks such as dental problems, effect on jaw growth and oral muscles [13], ear infections, reduction in breastfeeding duration [14], and speech development issues [15]. The recommendation further goes on to recommend weaning their children off pacifiers by 36 months to prevent the risk of long-term dependency and potential negative effects. Scientific evidence suggests that dental changes and malocclusion can be reversible and self-corrected if the pacifier usage is discontinued between two and three years [16].
A cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia reported that most of the mothers (68.3%) had the knowledge that using a pacifier could affect the primary teeth and cause an open bite [17]. In addition, a recent study in Turkey aimed to evaluate maternal knowledge and behavior toward the use of pacifiers, and 35.5% of them reported that using a pacifier is harmful and can interfere with teeth and jaw development [18].
The practice of dipping pacifiers in sweeteners, whether natural or artificial, such as honey or sugar, is traditionally used by some parents to soothe infants. However, this practice increases the risk of dental caries by promoting the growth of harmful bacteria in the mouth, leading to dental caries [10,19]. Mothers’ and caregivers’ knowledge and awareness regarding the potential risks of using pacifiers are important to prevent harm to their children. Moreover, there has been limited research on pacifier usage in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this study aims to assess pacifier usage among a group of Saudi 2- to 4-year-old healthy children in Jeddah and to identify the relationship between pacifier usage and the child’s demographic data (age, gender, birth order, and type of delivery), the child’s feeding practices, attending a nursery, maternal socioeconomic status (education and occupation), average family monthly household income, and knowledge of the harmful effect of dipping the pacifier in sweeteners.
2. Materials and Methods
This cross-sectional study was conducted in the city of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia after obtaining ethical approval from the ethics committee of King Abdulaziz University (131-11-18 on 23 January 2019).
Data for this study were collected between September and December 2019. The inclusion criteria included Saudi mothers of healthy 2- to 4-year-old children living in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The recruitment of the participants took place during three different community-awareness activities organized by the King Abdulaziz University Faculty of Dentistry (KAUFD) across the central, northern, and southern areas of Jeddah city.
Eligible mothers were approached by one of the two trained dentists on the research team to introduce them to the research aim. Those who agreed to participate signed an Arabic consent form before being interviewed using a validated Arabic questionnaire. If a mother had more than one healthy child within the age range, she was asked to answer the questionnaire for her youngest child.
Stratified sampling was used to select the three community-awareness activities in Jeddah’s central, northern, and southern regions. For sample size calculation, OpenEpi, Version 3, was used with a power of 80%, a two-sided confidence level (1-alpha) of 95%, and an odds ratio of 1.52, as referenced by Carcavalli et al. (2018) [20]. This estimated a sample size of 1188 participants.
The questionnaire was pre-tested for both face and content validity. Ten representative subjects were interviewed and asked for their opinions on the questions’ feasibility for face validity. Based on their feedback, minor changes were made to some of the questions.
The questionnaire was divided into three parts and included a total of 13 close-ended questions. The first part included the child’s demographic data (age, gender, birth order, and type of delivery), the child’s feeding practices (exclusive breastfeeding, exclusive bottle feeding, and mixed feeding), attending nursery, and maternal socioeconomic status (SES) (education and occupation), and average family monthly household income. The average family monthly household income was categorized as low (below 7000 Saudi Riyals), middle (7000 to 16,000 SR), or high (above 16,000 SR) based on the statistics provided by Saudi Arabia’s official website for family income data [21].
In the second part of the questionnaire, the pacifier usage included questions regarding the time the child used the pacifier during the day, the withdrawal age, whether the mother added sweeteners to the pacifier, and when solid food was added to the child’s diet.
At the end of the questionnaire, the mothers were asked to answer a knowledge question regarding the potential risk of dipping the pacifier in sweeteners, which can increase the risk of developing dental caries, followed by “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know” answers.
Statistical Analysis
The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Frequency, percentages, and chi-square were calculated for categorical values. Binary regression was conducted for the relationship between pacifier usage (dependent factor) and gender, birth order, and type of delivery, the child’s feeding practices, and the maternal SES (independent factors) to overcome the effect of confounders. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The predetermined threshold of significance was established at a p-value of less than 0.05.
3. Results
Demographic Characteristics
This study recruited 1438 mothers of children 4 years old or less. The mean age of participating children was 34.33 ± 10.7 months; 742 (51.6%) were females, and 441 (30.7%) used pacifiers. The demographic characteristics of the participating children and their mothers are presented in Table 1.
Of those who used pacifiers, 202 (45.8%) used it during daytime and nighttime. Most participating children, 157 (35.6%), stopped using the pacifier between the ages of four and six months, and only 27 (6.1%) mothers reported adding sweeteners to the pacifier. The characteristics of pacifier usage among the participating children are presented in Table 2.
Table 3 represents the association between the child’s demographic data and feeding practices, history of going to a nursery, and maternal SES with pacifier usage among children. The child’s birth order and type of feeding practices showed a highly significant association with using a pacifier (p < 0.001). The first-born children, 166 (37.6%), and children who received mixed feeding, 289 (65.5%), had the highest pacifier usage. In addition, attending a nursery showed a statistically significant relationship with the use of pacifiers (p = 0.007); children who are enrolled in a nursery were more likely to use of pacifiers, 167 (37.9%), compared to those who are not using a pacifier, 305 (30.6%). The child’s gender, type of delivery, and maternal SES did not show a statistically significant association with pacifier usage.
The regression analysis for the relationship between pacifier usage (dependent variable) and independent factors (child’s gender, birth order, feeding practices, attending a nursery) is shown. Child order showed a significant association with pacifier usage (p < 0.001). First-born children were statistically significantly more likely to use pacifiers (AOR: 2.351 and 95% CI: 1.703–3.246) than fourth-born or later. Moreover, breastfed children were significantly less likely to use a pacifier (AOR: 0.290 and 95% CI: 0.206–0.409) than those who received mixed feeding. Finally, children who attended a nursery were significantly more likely to use pacifiers (AOR: 1.325 and 95% CI: 1.035–1.695). The analysis did not include other factors that showed high collinearity with the included risk factors (Table 4).
Finally, this study examined the relationship between pacifier usage and maternal knowledge regarding the potential harm of dipping pacifiers in sweeteners. Most of the participating mothers, 1078 (75.6%), knew that dipping pacifiers in sweeteners can lead to dental caries. In addition, most of the participating mothers who knew the harmful effect of dipping the pacifiers in sweeteners did not give their participating child a pacifier, 748 (69.4%) (p = 0.077). The distribution of the participating mothers according to pacifier usage and their knowledge of the potential harm of dipping pacifiers in sweeteners is presented in Table 5.
4. Discussion
This study aims to assess pacifier usage among a group of Saudi 2- to 4-year-old healthy children in Jeddah and to identify the relationship between pacifier usage and the child’s demographic data (age, gender, birth order, and type of delivery), the child’s feeding practices, attending a nursery, maternal socioeconomic status (education and occupation), average family monthly household income, and knowledge of the harmful effect of dipping the pacifier in sweeteners.
The mothers of children aged 2 to 4 years were targeted in this study because this age group is more likely to still be using a pacifier and engaging in early feeding practices, making them highly relevant to our research objectives. Additionally, since the questionnaire relied on maternal recall, selecting a younger age group helped minimize recall bias and increased the likelihood of obtaining accurate and reliable information about recent or ongoing pacifier use and feeding behaviors.
Among our sample, only 441 (30.7%) used pacifiers, which is lower than the prevalence reported in Western countries [5,22]. Previous research has indicated that 79% of first-time Australian mothers introduced pacifiers to their infants [2]. Furthermore, a 2023 study conducted in Clark County, Nevada, revealed that 60.5% of participants provided pacifiers to their children [23]. The difference in results could be due to the cultural and religious background that supports and encourages breastfeeding for up to two years.
Of those who used pacifiers, 202 (45.8%) relied on them during both daytime and nighttime, a pattern consistent with findings from previous research by Saniatan et al. in 2023 [23]. This suggests that nearly half of the pacifier users in our study rely on them throughout the day rather than just at specific times, which may have a detrimental effect on primary dentition [15]. In addition, the pacifier withdrawal age varies among the participating children in our study, with a higher percentage of mothers, 157 (35.6%), reporting that their infants stopped using the pacifier between the ages of four and six months, which is consistent with another study conducted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, by Kakti et al., in 2019 [24], which is earlier than the recommended age by the AAPD. The AAPD advises discontinuing NNSHs, including pacifier usage, by 36 months. However, habits that persist beyond 18 months increase the risk of developing dental issues such as open bite, posterior crossbite, and class II malocclusion [15].
The practice of dipping pacifiers in sweetener substances like honey, juice, sugar, or syrup may be a common cultural practice in some regions of the world, as it may calm the child further and encourage them to suck more and accept the pacifier faster. In this study, only 27 mothers (6.1%) reported dipping the pacifier in sweeteners, a rate lower than that reported in other studies [18,25]. A Texas study surveyed parents of children up to 12 months old and found that 11% had given their infants honey pacifiers [25]. Furthermore, a study conducted in Turkey reported that 30.6% of the participating mothers engaged in the behavior of dipping pacifiers into sugary products, such as honey, molasses, and jam [18]. It is important to note that infants under 12 months should not be given honey as it may contain Clostridium botulinum spores, which can lead to infant botulism. This rare but serious condition affects the nervous system and can cause muscle weakness, breathing difficulties, paralysis, and even death [26].
In this study, the child’s birth order, type of feeding practices, and children who attend a nursery were associated with a higher chance of pacifier usage. First-born children were more likely to be given pacifiers than later-born siblings. This can be the case since first-time mothers usually lack previous experience and may give their children a pacifier more often. Also, first-born children usually receive more concentrated and focused parental care, increasing pacifier use. A study among first-time Australian mothers reported that 79% of them introduced pacifiers to their infants, and the primary reasons cited for the pacifier usage included soothing the baby and aiding sleep. Their decision may have been influenced by recommendations from family members, friends, or healthcare professionals [2]. In contrast, another study reported that mothers with more than one child were more likely to introduce a pacifier [23].
Moreover, most of the children who used pacifiers were mixed fed (289, 65.5%), while the exclusively breastfed children were significantly less likely (47, 10.7%) to use a pacifier. This finding aligns with a study by Gomes-Filho et al. (2019), who reported that exclusive breastfeeding is associated with a lower prevalence of pacifier use in children at 12 months [27]. Therefore, encouraging exclusive breastfeeding may help decrease pacifier usage and its potential adverse effects. However, the AAP recommends delaying the introduction of pacifiers until breastfeeding is established [28]. Moreover, a recent study has indicated that the timing of pacifier introduction, whether early or late, does not influence breastfeeding at six months [29].
The infant’s or toddler’s sex, type of delivery, and maternal SES did not show a statistically significant association with pacifier usage. This finding is consistent with previous research, which also reported no significant difference in pacifier usage based on the child’s sex [23]. In contrast, another study found a significant difference in pacifier usage between babies based on the delivery method. The highest prevalence of pacifier usage was seen among infants born via emergency cesarean section, while the highest rates of non-users were observed in vaginally delivered infants [30].
Furthermore, the study found no statistically significant association between maternal SES and pacifier usage. This contradicts Saniatan et al. and Mitev et al., who found that mothers who provide pacifiers to their children tend to be less educated compared to those who do not, indicating that SES may influence decisions regarding pacifier usage [23,31].
In addition, though most of the participating mothers, 1078 (75.6%), were aware that dipping pacifiers in sweeteners could have harmful effects, only 69.4% actively avoided giving a pacifier to their child. This suggests a critical knowledge–behavior gap. The disconnect indicates that awareness alone may not be sufficient to influence maternal practices, a phenomenon previously documented in health behavior research [32]. This could be attributed to habitual behaviors and cultural norms that override knowledge, such as the common practice of using pacifiers as soothing tools [33]. Additionally, the perceived risk may be underestimated; mothers might acknowledge the general danger and risk of sweetened pacifiers but fail to perceive the harm as immediate or serious enough to change their habits [34]. This finding highlights the need for targeted health education initiatives that go beyond raising awareness to effectively promote sustained behavioral change.
This study has provided valuable insights into the practices and maternal knowledge regarding pacifier usage in Saudi Arabia. One of the main strengths of this study is its large sample size, which represents the central, northern, and southern areas of the city of Jeddah. However, since the data were collected during community-awareness events, there is a risk of selection bias, and the sample may not accurately represent the general population. As a result, the generalizability of the findings is limited and may not fully reflect the broader national context. Furthermore, since this study relies on a questionnaire and self-reported data, there is a potential risk of recall bias. Participants may inaccurately recall or misreport past behaviors, such as pacifier usage, duration, or weaning age.
5. Conclusions
This study suggests that childbirth order, type of feeding practice, and attending a nursery are important predictors of pacifier usage among children in Saudi Arabia. Understanding these factors can help guide parental education and early intervention strategies to promote optimal oral health and feeding habits in children.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.M.B., N.M.F., S.N.A. and H.J.S.; Formal Analysis, H.J.S.; Investigation, L.A. and H.B.; Methodology, S.M.B., N.M.F., S.N.A. and H.J.S.; Writing—Original Draft, S.M.B., L.A., H.B., N.M.F. and S.N.A.; Writing—Review and Editing, S.M.B., N.M.F. and H.J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The project was funded by KAU Endowment (WAQF) at King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The authors, therefore, acknowledge with thanks WAQF and the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR) for technical and financial support.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the ethics committee of King Abdulaziz University (131-11-18 on 23 January 2019).
Informed Consent Statement
All the participants consented to participate in the survey/questionnaire study using Google Forms electronically.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully extend our thanks to the participants for taking the time to participate in this study.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| NNSHs | Non-nutritive sucking habits |
| AAPD | American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry |
| CIs | Confidence intervals |
| AORs | Adjusted odds ratios |
References
- Borrie, F.R.; Bearn, D.R.; Innes, N.P.; Iheozor-Ejiofor, Z. Interventions for the cessation of non-nutritive sucking habits in children. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, Cd008694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mauch, C.E.; Scott, J.A.; Magarey, A.M.; Daniels, L.A. Predictors of and reasons for pacifier use in first-time mothers: An observational study. BMC Pediatr. 2012, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ekambaram, M.; Irigoyen, M.M.; Paoletti, A.; Siddiqui, I. Impact of a Baby-Friendly-Aligned Pacifier Policy on Pacifier Use at 1 Month of Age. Acad. Pediatr. 2019, 19, 808–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldberg, N.; Rodriguez-Prado, Y.; Tillery, R.; Chua, C. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: A Review. Pediatr. Ann. 2018, 47, e118–e123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmid, K.M.; Kugler, R.; Nalabothu, P.; Bosch, C.; Verna, C. The effect of pacifier sucking on orofacial structures: A systematic literature review. Prog. Orthod. 2018, 19, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arpalahti, I.; Hänninen, K.; Tolvanen, M.; Varrela, J.; Rice, D.P. The effect of early childhood non-nutritive sucking behavior including pacifiers on malocclusion: A randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Orthod. 2024, 46, cjae024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gábris, K.; Márton, S.; Madléna, M. Prevalence of malocclusions in Hungarian adolescents. Eur. J. Orthod. 2006, 28, 467–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hafez, H.S.; Shaarawy, S.M.; Al-Sakiti, A.A.; Mostafa, Y.A. Dental crowding as a caries risk factor: A systematic review. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2012, 142, 443–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopes, D.F.; Fernandes, R.T.; Medeiros, Y.L.; Apolonio, A.C.M. Disinfection of Pacifier Focusing on Candida albicans. Clin. Pediatr. 2019, 58, 1540–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ollila, P.; Niemelä, M.; Uhari, M.; Larmas, M. Prolonged pacifier-sucking and use of a nursing bottle at night: Possible risk factors for dental caries in children. Acta Odontol. Scand. 1998, 56, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Policy on early childhood caries (ECC): Classifications, consequences, and preventive strategies. In The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry; American Academy of Pediatric Dentirsty: Chicago, IL, USA, 2020; pp. 79–81. [Google Scholar]
- Sexton, S.; Natale, R. Risks and benefits of pacifiers. Am. Fam. Physician 2009, 79, 681–685. [Google Scholar]
- Gederi, A.; Coomaraswamy, K.; Turner, P.J. Pacifiers: A review of risks vs benefits. Dent. Update 2013, 40, 92–94, 97–98, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buccini, G.D.S.; Pérez-Escamilla, R.; Paulino, L.M.; Araújo, C.L.; Venancio, S.I. Pacifier use and interruption of exclusive breastfeeding: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Matern. Child Nutr. 2017, 13, e12384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Policy on Pacifiers. In The Reference Manual of Pediatric Dentistry; American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry: Chicago, IL, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Katz, C.R.; Rosenblatt, A. Nonnutritive sucking habits and anterior open bite in Brazilian children: A longitudinal study. Pediatr. Dent. 2005, 27, 369–373. [Google Scholar]
- Tarek, Y.; AlMubarak, S.; Aljassem, Z.; Al_Aliwi, S.; Albagshi, M. Awareness of mother with baby pacifier. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2021, 9, 516–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Topan, A.; Kurt, A.; Yanik, M.; Tatoğlu, N.; Özsavran, M. The knowledge and behaviors of mothers with children 0–3 aged about pacifier use—A cross-sectional study. Eur. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2022, 20, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paglia, L.; Scaglioni, S.; Torchia, V.; De Cosmi, V.; Moretti, M.; Marzo, G.; Giuca, M.R. Familial and dietary risk factors in Early Childhood Caries. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2016, 17, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Carcavalli, L.; Martins, C.C.; Rocha, I.A.; Parlato, E.M.; Serra-Negra, J.M. Preterm Birth, Pacifier use and Breastfeeding: Is there a Relationship? Braz. Dent. J. 2018, 29, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- General Authority for Statistics. Household Expenditure and Income Survey 1434 H. 2013. Available online: https://www.stats.gov.sa/documents/20117/1400941/household_expenditure_and_income_survey_2013.pdf/506b7742-7768-1b71-cf8c-ab885946662b?t=1734171772038#:~:text=The%20average%20income%20of%20the%20Saudi%20household,a%20remarkable%20increase%20over%20the%20period%202007%2D2013 (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Melo, L.; Silva, L.; Silva, S.; Rosell, F.; Junior, A.; Zuanon, A.; Tagliaferro, E. Association between Pacifier Use, Bottle-Feeding, and Pre- Postnatal Variables: A Cohort Study. Pesqui. Bras. Odontopediatria Clin. Integr. 2023, 23, e220160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saniatan, K.L.; Neupane, S.; Cross, C.; Buccini, G. Socio-demographic, maternal, and infant characteristics associated with pacifier use among six-months old infants in Clark County, Nevada. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0285097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kakti, A.A.; Alabdullah, A.S.; Alahmed, A.; Alhowajji, Z.; Alswailem, E.; Alhassan, H. Prevalence of pacifier use and the impact of maternal education and regularity of dental visits on the age of pacifier withdrawal. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2019, 37, 8–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benjamins, L.J.; Gourishankar, A.; Yataco-Marquez, V.; Cardona, E.H.; de Ybarrondo, L. Honey pacifier use among an indigent pediatric population. Pediatrics 2013, 131, e1838–e1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- FDA Warns Against Giving Honey-Filled Pacifiers to Infants. Available online: https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/news/fda-warns-against-giving-honey-filled-pacifiers-to-infants/ (accessed on 30 May 2025).
- Gomes-Filho, I.S.; Pinheiro, S.M.S.; Vieira, G.O.; Alves, T.D.B.; Cruz, S.S.D.; Figueiredo, A.; Mota, E.L.A.; Oliveira, N.F.; Passos-Soares, J.S.; Trindade, S.C.; et al. Exclusive breast-feeding is associated with reduced pacifier sucking in children: Breast-feeding and pacifier-sucking habit. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2019, 150, 940–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Section on Breastfeeding. Breastfeeding and the use of human milk. Pediatrics 2012, 129, e827–e841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hermanson, Å.; Åstrand, L.L. The effects of early pacifier use on breastfeeding: A randomised controlled trial. Women Birth 2020, 33, e473–e482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hulman, A.; Pakai, A.; Csákvári, T.; Keczeli, V.; Varga, K. The Impact of Mode of Delivery and Postpartum Conditions on Breastfeeding: A Cross-Sectional Study. Healthcare 2024, 12, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mitev, K.; Frewin, K.L.; Augustinova, M.; Niedenthal, P.M.; Rychlowska, M.; Vanderwert, R.E. The who, when, and why of pacifier use. Pediatr. Res. 2025, 97, 2282–2287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, D.; Goel, N.K.; Kalia, M.; Swami, H.M.; Singh, R. Gap between awareness and practices regarding maternal and child health among women in an urban slum community. Indian J. Pediatr. 2008, 75, 455–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peres, K.G.; Cascaes, A.M.; Peres, M.A.; Demarco, F.F.; Santos, I.S.; Matijasevich, A.; Barros, A.J. Exclusive Breastfeeding and Risk of Dental Malocclusion. Pediatrics 2015, 136, e60–e67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasim Mohmmed, R.A. Identification of factors associated with the use of pacifiers in children. Mansoura Nurs. J. 2018, 5, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
The demographic characteristics of the participating children and their mothers (N = 1438).
Table 1.
The demographic characteristics of the participating children and their mothers (N = 1438).
| Variables | N (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Child gender | Male | 696 (48.4) |
| Female | 742 (51.6) | |
| Birth order | 1st | 388 (27.0) |
| 2nd | 401 (27.9) | |
| 3rd | 279 (19.4) | |
| 4th or more | 370 (25.7) | |
| Type of delivery | Normal | 963 (67.0) |
| Cesarean | 475 (33.0) | |
| Type of feeding | Exclusive breastfeeding | 345 (24.0) |
| Exclusive bottle feeding | 251 (17.5) | |
| Mixed feeding | 842 (58.6) | |
| Attending a nursery | Yes | 472 (32.8) |
| No | 966 (67.2) | |
| Maternal education | Illiterate/primary school | 510 (35.5) |
| Intermediate/high school | 346 (24.1) | |
| College and postgrad | 582 (40.5) | |
| Maternal occupation | Student | 110 (7.6) |
| Worker | 383 (26.6) | |
| Housewife | 945 (65.7) | |
| Average family monthly household income | Low | 334 (23.2) |
| Moderate | 614 (42.7) | |
| High | 490 (34.1) | |
Table 2.
Characteristics of pacifier usage among the participating children (N = 441).
| Variables | N (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| At what time of the day did the child use the pacifier? | Daytime | 134 (30.4) |
| Nighttime | 105 (23.8) | |
| During both | 202 (45.8) | |
| Pacifier withdrawal age (in months) | 0–3 | 54 (12.2) |
| 4–6 | 157 (35.6) | |
| 7–12 | 52 (11.8) | |
| 13–24 | 118 (26.8) | |
| 25–36 | 49 (11.1) | |
| >36 m | 11 (2.5) | |
| Added sweeteners to the pacifier | Yes | 27 (6.1) |
| No | 414 (93.8) | |
| When was solid food introduced to the child’s diet (in months)? | 0–3 | 10 (2.3) |
| 4–6 | 281 (63.7) | |
| 7–12 | 117 (26.5) | |
| 13–24 | 23 (5.2) | |
| 24–36 | 10 (2.3) | |
Table 3.
Child demographic data and feeding practices, history of attending a nursery, maternal socioeconomic status, and the average family monthly household income with pacifier usage among the participating children (N = 1438).
Table 3.
Child demographic data and feeding practices, history of attending a nursery, maternal socioeconomic status, and the average family monthly household income with pacifier usage among the participating children (N = 1438).
| Variables | Did the Child Use a Pacifier? | Total | p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||||
| Child gender | Male | 209 (47.4) | 487 (48.8) | 696 (48.4) | 0.61 |
| Female | 232 (52.6) | 510 (51.2) | 742 (51.6) | ||
| Birth order | 1st | 166 (37.6) | 222 (22.3) | 388 (27.0) | <0.001 * |
| 2nd | 114 (25.9) | 287 (28.8) | 401 (27.9) | ||
| 3rd | 72 (16.3) | 207 (20.8) | 279 (19.4) | ||
| 4th or more | 89 (20.2) | 281 (28.2) | 370 (25.7) | ||
| Type of delivery | Normal | 282 (63.9) | 681 (68.3) | 963 (67.0) | 0.105 |
| Cesarean | 159 (36.1) | 316 (31.7) | 475 (33.0) | ||
| Type of feeding practice | Exclusive breastfeeding | 47 (10.7) | 298 (29.9) | 345 (24.0) | <0.001 * |
| Exclusive bottle feeding | 105 (23.8) | 146 (14.6) | 251 (17.5) | ||
| Mixed feeding | 289 (65.5) | 553 (55.5) | 842 (58.6) | ||
| Attending a nursery | Yes | 167 (37.9) | 305 (30.6) | 472 (32.8) | 0.007 * |
| No | 274 (62.1) | 692 (69.4) | 966 (67.2) | ||
| Maternal education | Illiterate/primary school | 166 (37.6) | 344 (34.5) | 510 (35.5) | 0.483 |
| Intermediate/high school | 100 (22.7) | 246 (24.7) | 346 (24.1) | ||
| College and postgrad | 175 (39.7) | 407 (40.8) | 582 (40.5) | ||
| Maternal occupation | Student | 42 (9.5) | 68 (6.8) | 110 (7.6) | 0.152 |
| Worker | 121 (27.4) | 262 (26.3) | 383 (26.6) | ||
| Housewife | 278 (63.0) | 667 (66.9) | 945 (65.7) | ||
| Average family monthly household income | Low | 96 (21.8) | 238 (23.9) | 334 (23.2) | 0.637 |
| Moderate | 189 (42.9) | 425 (42.6) | 614 (42.7) | ||
| High | 156 (35.4) | 334 (33.5) | 490 (34.1) | ||
* statistically significant at 0.05.
Table 4.
Regression analysis for the relationship between pacifier usage (dependent factor) and child gender, birth order, type of feeding practices, and attending a nursery (independent factors).
Table 4.
Regression analysis for the relationship between pacifier usage (dependent factor) and child gender, birth order, type of feeding practices, and attending a nursery (independent factors).
| AOR (95% CI) p-Value | ||
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 0.946 (0.748–1.196) 0.642 |
| Female | 1.000 | |
| Birth order | 1st | 2.351 (1.703–3.246) < 0.001 * |
| 2nd | 1.301 (0.935–1.811) 0.119 | |
| 3rd | 1.185 (0.820–1.711) 0.366 | |
| 4th or more | 1.000 | |
| Type of feeding practice | Exclusive breastfeeding | 0.290 (0.206–0.409) < 0.001 * |
| Exclusive bottle feeding | 1.289 (0.957–1.736) 0.095 | |
| Mixed feeding | 1.000 | |
| Attending a nursery | Yes | 1.325 (1.035–1.695) 0.026 * |
| No | 1.00 | |
* statistically significant at 0.05.
Table 5.
Distribution of the participating mothers according to pacifier usage and their knowledge of the potential harm of dipping pacifiers in sweeteners (N = 1438).
Table 5.
Distribution of the participating mothers according to pacifier usage and their knowledge of the potential harm of dipping pacifiers in sweeteners (N = 1438).
| Variables | Did the Child Use a Pacifier? | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dipping the Pacifier in Sweetener Can Lead to Caries | Yes | No | |
| Yes | 339 (76.8) | 748 (68.8) | 1078 (75.6) |
| No | 22 (5.0) | 31 (3.1) | 53 (3.7) |
| I don’t know | 80 (18.1) | 218 (21.9) | 298 (20.7) |
p = 0.077.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Bagher, S.M.; Alattas, L.; Bakhaidar, H.; Farsi, N.M.; Abudawood, S.N.; Sabbagh, H.J. Pacifier Usage Among Saudi Children: A Cross-Sectional Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Healthcare 2025, 13, 1935. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151935
AMA Style
Bagher SM, Alattas L, Bakhaidar H, Farsi NM, Abudawood SN, Sabbagh HJ. Pacifier Usage Among Saudi Children: A Cross-Sectional Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Healthcare. 2025; 13(15):1935. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151935
Chicago/Turabian StyleBagher, Sara M., Logain Alattas, Haneen Bakhaidar, Najat M. Farsi, Shahad N. Abudawood, and Heba Jafar Sabbagh. 2025. "Pacifier Usage Among Saudi Children: A Cross-Sectional Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia" Healthcare 13, no. 15: 1935. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151935
APA StyleBagher, S. M., Alattas, L., Bakhaidar, H., Farsi, N. M., Abudawood, S. N., & Sabbagh, H. J. (2025). Pacifier Usage Among Saudi Children: A Cross-Sectional Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Healthcare, 13(15), 1935. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare13151935
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
