31
CPSC NEISS Data 2005–2024

Pacifiers Or Teething Rings

Twenty years of CPSC NEISS emergency-room records for this consumer product category, combined with demographic breakdowns, multi-year injury trends, and matching recall notices.

Nursery & Baby Products · CPSC Code 1525

Down 13% over 5 years

The verdict

Pacifiers Or Teething Rings carry a danger score of 31/100 (low risk), driven by roughly 931 ER-treated injuries a year that are declining by about 13% over the last five years.

31/100
danger score (low risk)
931
ER visits per year (avg)
2.6%
end in hospital admission
0-4
most-injured age group

Every figure is rendered from the CPSC NEISS record for product code 1525 - last data year 2024.

PlainSafety danger score

0/100100/10031/100
PlainSafety danger score

Source: CPSC NEISS danger-score model As of 2024

How this 31/100 score is built

The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for pacifiers or teething rings - no opinion, no editorializing:

  • Injury volume931 ER visits/yr
  • Severity (hospitalization rate)2.6%
  • Fatality rate0.06%
  • 5-year trend-13%

See the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.

What the CPSC Data Shows

Pacifiers Or Teething Rings (CPSC product code 1525, in the Nursery & Baby Products category) generate an estimated 931 emergency-room visits every year in the United States, adding up to roughly 18,611 ER-treated injuries across the 20-year span from 2005 to 2024. PlainSafety derives a danger score of 31/100 for this category (low risk), combining raw injury volume, demographic reach, severity of outcome, and multi-year trend. The five-year trajectory shows that injury counts are declining by about 13% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2010 (1,575 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2020 (360 estimated visits).

The single most common ER diagnosis for pacifiers or teething rings is laceration to the mouth, accounting for approximately 5,558 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by dental injury to the mouth (1,256 cases). The 0-4 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 16,648 cases over the NEISS window, and males appear slightly more often than the opposite sex in that cohort. Severity outcomes from the NEISS disposition field show that 2.6% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer, and a small fraction (0.06%) result in fatality.

Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 414 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how pacifiers or teething rings fail in real households. Every figure on this page comes from CPSC-published data: NEISS projects national estimates from a probability sample of about 100 U.S. hospital emergency departments, while SaferProducts.gov collects voluntary reports from consumers, manufacturers, and clinicians. The danger score, trend indicators, and demographic breakdowns update automatically when CPSC releases a new yearly NEISS file, which is why this page is dated 2024-12-31. For regulatory context, consult CPSC recall notices and the SaferProducts.gov public database linked below.

931
Injuries / Year
2.6%
Hospitalization Rate
0.06%
Fatality Rate

Annual Injury Estimates (2005–2024)

05001K2K2K 20052008201120142017202020232024 1K
Estimated annual emergency-room visits for Pacifiers Or Teething Rings, CPSC NEISS

Source: CPSC NEISS national injury estimates As of 2024

Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only

Who Gets Injured?

Age Group Male Female Total
0-4 9,279 7,369 16,648
5-14 189 292 481
15-24 32 314 346
25-34 57 671 728
35-44 0 47 47
45-54 0 16 16
55-64 0 170 170
65-74 94 72 166
75+ 0 15 15

Most Common Injuries

Body Part Diagnosis Est. Injuries
Mouth Laceration 5,558
Mouth Dental Injury 1,256
Mouth Other 1,209
Face Laceration 1,039
Internal Ingestion 1,030
Mouth Contusions, Abr. 881
Internal Aspiration 791
Head Internal Injury 742
Eyeball Contusions, Abr. 702
Face Derma/conjunct 684
Face Contusions, Abr. 606
Mouth Derma/conjunct 426
All Parts Body Poisoning 318
Lower Trunk Strain, Sprain 250
Eyeball Other 224

Severity Breakdown

Treated/examined And Released 94.1% (17,527)
Left Without Being Seen 2.8% (517)
Treated And Admitted/hospitalized 1.8% (328)
Treated And Transferred 1.3% (236)
Held For Observation 0.1% (11)
Fatality Incl. Doa, Died In Er 0.1% (11)

ER Visit Narratives

Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.

Age 2 · Female · Ear · Foreign Body · 2024

2YOF- PATIENT PUT A PLASTIC TIP OF PACIFIER IN LEFT EAR. DX: FOREIGN BODY IN LEFT EAR

Age 24 · Female · Eyeball · Contusions, Abr. · 2024

24YOF WITH LEFT EYE PAIN. STATES SHE WAS STRUCK IN THE EYE BY THE CLIP OF HER DAUGHTERS PACIFIER. DX LEFT CORNEAL ABRASION

Age 219 · Male · Internal · Ingestion · 2024

19 MOM. SWALLOWED THE RUBBER TIP OF HIS PACIFIER. DX: LWOT

Age 214 · Female · Mouth · Other · 2024

14 MOF GROUND LEVEL FALL WITH PACIFIER IN MOUTH DX INJURY MOUTH

Age 215 · Female · Mouth · Dental Injury · 2024

15MOF WAS RUNNING WITH A PACIFIER IN HER MOUTH AND FELL CHIPPED A TOOTH DX: DENTAL INJURY

Age 3 · Male · Internal · Ingestion · 2024

3YOM SWALLOWED THE TIP OF HIS PACIFIER DX: FOREIGN OBJECT INGESTION

Age 210 · Female · Internal · Aspiration · 2024

10MOF BIT OFF A PIECE OF A PACIFIER AND STARTED CHOKING ON IT DX: CHOKING EPISODE

Age 2 · Female · Mouth · Hemorrhage · 2024

2YOF PRESENTS AFTER SHE WAS WALKING WHEN SHE FELL FACE FIRST, PACIFIER BROKE, AND HAS BLEEDING FROM TOP FRONT TOOTH. DX: TOOTH PAIN, FALL

Age 209 · Male · Internal · Ingestion · 2024

9MOM PRESENTS WITH FOREIGN BODY INGESTION AFTER SWALLOWING A SWIVEL CLIP FROM HIS PACIFIER. DX: SWALLOWED FOREIGN BODY

Age 2 · Male · Internal · Ingestion · 2024

2YOM PT POSSIBILY SWALLOWED A SMALL PIECE OF PLASTIC FROM PACIFIER TODAY DX: SWALLOWED FB

Age 218 · Male · Mouth · Avulsion · 2024

18MOM FELL WITH A PACIFIER IN HIS MOUTH, NO HIS GUM IS BLEEDING DX: TEAR OF UPPER LIP FRENULUM

Age 212 · Male · Mouth · Laceration · 2024

12MOM FELL WITH A PACIFIER IN HIS MOUTH AND STRUCK UPPER LIP DX: LIP LACERATION

Consumer Incident Reports

Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.

9/9/2019 · Injury, No First Aid or Medical Attention Received · Philips Consumer Lifestyle · Canada

my baby has a philips AVENT pacifier and as he was sucking on it it tore and he choked on a piece that broke off

9/9/2013 · Injury, Level of care not known · VULLI (JOUETS) · California

Caller stated that after purchasing the teething toy approximately 5 seconds later her 5 month old child was choking on the feet of the giraffe. The child was able to placed the toy in her mouth and it became lodged in her throat. She was able to retrieve the product before there was any injury to the child. No medical attention was received. There is no warning label. 9/8/13 She contacted the Manager of the store and she was informed that he has received complaints from other consumers of the same incidents and that she could write a review online. She feels that this teether toy is a choking hazard and could have caused fatality. The product is not involved in a recall.

9/8/2014 · Injury, No First Aid or Medical Attention Received · Learning Curve Brands, Inc. · Illinois

I recently bought a Gum Drop 6-12 Month size pacifier for my infant. I gave her the pacifier when she went to sleep. In the night, it fell out and she tried to out it in herself. When she stuck her thumb into the back of the product, her thumb got caught and she could not get it out. After trying to sleep with her thumb in the pacifier, she woke screaming because it was cutting off the circulation to her thumb. The 6 month pacifiers have a different kind of hole in the back which catches a child's finger and doesn't let go. I am an adult, and it was extremely hard for me to get it off her thumb. Who knows what would have happened if we had not found it when we did. If her thumb had been in there all night, she may not have had use of it ever again. I am so angry this product is on the market. This is supposed to be a safe, soothing mechanism, but instead it is quite the opposite. This is a serious danger to children.

9/8/2012 · Injury, No First Aid or Medical Attention Received · KIDS II, INC · Ohio

I bought a teething toy for my 4 1/2 month old baby, the Bright Starts Pretty in Pink Carry & Teeth Purse. She was chewing on it, then she just started crying. I took the toy and then realized she was bleeding in her mouth! This happened on July 10th, 2012, and I contacted the company through their Twitter page. They never responded.

9/5/2022 · No Incident, No Injury · PFD Co., Ltd · United States

We bought a teether toy for our infant daughters and it was made of very flimsy material that tore easily and a chunk came off. This is a dangerous choking hazard.

9/5/2017 · Injury, Seen by Medical Professional · Learning Curve Brands, Inc. · New York

Good afternoon, My name is [REDACTED]. I am a [REDACTED] for the Albany County Department of Health, in upstate New York. I work in the [REDACTED] as an EPA certified Lead Risk Assessor. On June 26, 2017, I conducted a risk assessment with my co-worker, [REDACTED], at a home where a child was lead poisoned. Interior and exterior lead paint hazards were identified, however, they were relatively minor in nature. Upon completion of required remediation, we returned to the home and took clearance dust samples. This was done on August 4th, 2017. The dust samples passed the EPA clearance levels. Typically, when lead hazards are remediated, a child's blood lead level should begin to decrease. However, in this case, the child was tested again, and his levels continued to rise. [REDACTED] and I returned to the home on September 1, 2017, to investigate further. (We had tested some of the toys in the home during the first inspection, but were unable to find anything positive for lead). On September 1, I re-tested toys in the home, this time testing virtually everything, including the crib. During conversation with the child's mother, I determined that the child was spending a lot of time in the family vehicle when they would travel to visit relatives. I asked if I could check the interior of the car. Inside I found a toy that the child regularly mouths (it is a teething toy). When I tested it with our XRF analyzer, it registered at 12.9 mg/cm2. This toy is built by "The First Years." It is called a "My Phone." We brought the toy back to the office and took it apart so we could determine whether the positive reading was coming from the plastic casing, or if it was coming from the electronic components within. When I opened it up I noticed a metal disc which showed obvious areas of corrosion. I tested the disc with the XRF and it registered at 18.2 mg/cm2. The disc is located within the plastic, however, there are several small holes that would easily allow corroded metal du

9/30/2019 · Incident, No Injury · Huizhou Huapin Garment Co, Ltd · California

Hi! One of my daycare kids has Babygoal Pacifier Clips. The clip detached and it is small enough to be a choking hazard. I removed the clips from all the tethers.

9/30/2013 · Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional · Luv n' care, Ltd · Virginia

My 6.5 month old son was standing in his [REDACTED] chewing on his teething ring.  I walked into the kitchen and heard an odd noise. I turned around in time to see him gagging with the full teether in his mouth and him sputtering vomit overflowing past the teether onto his [REDACTED] tray. His eyes watery and bulging, arms flailing with panic in his face going red. I made it to him after a few seconds pushing my daughter out of the way tripping on the cat and a few toys. I pulled it out of his mouth. Cleared his mouth and nose. He was pretty shaken up as was my daughter after watching it and being moved aside but in a few minutes I was able to settle them both. He seemed to have a wet cough that developed immediately following the incident. It lasted 3 days and has self resolved.

Showing 8 of 414 reports.

Product Recalls

Search for active and past recalls related to pacifiers or teething rings on the CPSC website.

Frequently Asked Questions

How dangerous are pacifiers or teething rings?

Based on 20 years of CPSC data, pacifiers or teething rings have a danger score of 31/100 (low risk). An estimated 931 ER-treated injuries occur annually in the U.S. related to this product category.

What are the most common injuries from pacifiers or teething rings?

The most common injury is laceration to the mouth, accounting for approximately 5,558 injuries over 20 years.

Are injuries from pacifiers or teething rings increasing or decreasing?

Down 13% over 5 years.

Who is most at risk for pacifiers or teething rings injuries?

The 0-4 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 16,648 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.

What happens when someone is injured by pacifiers or teething rings?

Of all ER visits involving pacifiers or teething rings, approximately 2.6% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (97.4%) are treated and released from the emergency department.

How can I report a safety problem with pacifiers or teething rings?

You can file a consumer incident report at SaferProducts.gov, the official CPSC reporting portal. Reports help the CPSC identify emerging hazards and trigger investigations or recalls. You can also call the CPSC hotline at 1-800-638-2772.

Safety Guides

What this means for you

Treat the 31/100 score as relative risk between products, not your personal odds of injury.

  • See where this category ranks against every other tracked product. Full rankings
  • Injuries cluster in the 0-4 age group, take extra care if that describes your household.
  • Check for active recalls on this product before you assume it is safe. CPSC recalls

NEISS estimates ER-treated injuries from a national probability sample of hospitals; they do not capture injuries treated elsewhere or not treated at all.

Data: CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments. This page is for informational purposes only and is not affiliated with the CPSC.