Abstract Introduction The newborn hearing screening (NHS) test aims the early diagnostic of hearing deficits that may also harm the full development of communication and learning of the affected child. Objective Trace the clinical and epidemiological profile of children born between July 2016 and July 2019; in addition to the outcome of the NHSs and factors related to failure in the hearing tests at a maternity of a tertiary hospital in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Methods The present is a cross-sectional study. A census of those born in the period defined for study was performed and a script was developed for the review of medical records, based on the literature. Results The sample can be considered homogeneous in relation to gender and age. The pregnant women had an average of 30.9 years. There were 30 neonates (1.9%) that did not undergo NHS. New evaluations were required in 288 patients (18.2%). Finally, 24 (1.5% of the population) remained with insufficient results in the retest. The following variables achieved statistical relevance with higher failure rates in tests and/or retests: natural delivery (p = 0.007), arterial hypertension present (p = 0.002), use of hydralazine (p = 0.038), and use of dipyrone in the test (p = 0.041) and retest (p = 0.003). Younger mothers had higher levels of normality in the test (p = 0.003) and retest (p = 0.161). The correlations between the other variables and the outcomes were not statistically significant. Conclusion False positives (62.8%) in the first test showed a value higher than the ideal goal; those who did not undergo the NHS (1.9%) and who needed evaluation by a specialist, due to failure in the retest (1.5%), are within the quality goals defined by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) in 2007. (NHS child 201 2019 Catarina Brazil crosssectional cross sectional records literature age 309 9 30. years 3 1.9% 19 1 (1.9% 28 18.2%. 182 18.2% . 18 2 (18.2%) Finally 1.5% 15 5 (1.5 population andor or retests p 0.007, 0007 0.007 , 0 007 0.007) 0.002, 0002 0.002 002 0.002) 0.038, 0038 0.038 038 0.038) 0.041 0041 041 0.003. 0003 0.003 003 0.161. 0161 0.161 161 0.161) significant 62.8% 628 62 8 (62.8% goal specialist 1.5%, (1.5%) JCIH (JCIH 2007 20 1.9 (1.9 18.2 (18.2% 1.5 (1. 000 0.00 00 0.03 03 0.04 004 04 016 0.16 16 62.8 6 (62.8 200 1. 18. (18.2 (1 0.0 01 0.1 62. (62. (18. ( 0. (62 (18 (6

INTRODUÇÃO: A respiração oral é um sintoma frequente na infância e exerce diversas alterações que comprometem o desenvolvimento físico e cognitivo infantil,influenciando negativamente na qualidade de vida do paciente. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a qualidade de vida do respirador oral, comparando-a com não respiradores orais. MÉTODO: Estudo transversal descritivo, prospectivo com uma amostra de 71 pacientes de 4 a 17 anos, sendo 39 respiradores orais atendidos por otorrinolaringologistas e 32 pacientes não respiradores orais como grupo controle, avaliados quanto à qualidade de vida através de um questionário. RESULTADOS: Os respiradores orais apresentaram mais problemas nasais, com o sono e alimentares, além de uma maior pontuação média para roncar à noite (p<0,0001), quando comparados ao grupo controle. A prevalência de roncos noturnos nos pacientes respiradores orais foi de 87,2%. A alta pontuação na escala de respostas significou uma pior qualidade de vida. CONCLUSÃO: A Síndrome do Respirador Oral parece estar relacionada a um impacto negativo na qualidade de vida, principalmente no que se refere aos problemas nasais, com o sono e alimentação. Futuros estudos com a aplicação do mesmo questionário tornam-se necessários para que este possa se tornar um instrumento capaz de avaliar a qualidade de vida dos pacientes em questão.

INTRODUCTION: The oral breathing is a frequent symptom in childhood and has many alterations that compromise the child physical and cognitive development, negatively influencing from the oral breather, comparing her with the not oral breathers. METHOD: Cross sectional study, prospective with a sample from 71 patients from 4 to 17 years, being 39 mouth breathers attended by otorhinolaryngologists and 32 patients not mouth breathers as the control group, evaluated as the quality of life through a questionnaire. RESULTS: The oral breathers presented more nasal problems, with the sleep and food, besides an greater average punctuation for snoring at night (p<0,0001), when compared to the control group. The prevalence of night snoring in the patients oral breathers was of 87,2%. The high punctuation in the scale of answers meant a worst quality of life. CONCLUSION: The syndrome of the oral breather seems to be related to a negative impact in the quality of life, mainly for the nasal problems, with the sleep and eating. Future studies with the application of the same questionnaire have become needed for this to become as capable instrument of evaluation of the life quality from the patients in the matter.