The effect of maxillary advancement on articulation of alveolar consonants in cleft patients

The impact of orthognathic surgery on articulation proficiency and speech intelligibility in skeletal Class III malocclusion: 18 months follow up

Introduction

Orthognathic surgery results in the positional change of the maxilla and mandible that may affect speech. The present study evaluated the effect of combined maxillary advancement and mandibular setback surgery on articulation proficiency and speech intelligibility in patients with non-syndromic skeletal Class III malocclusion.

Methods

In this prospective study, twenty-five patients with skeletal class III malocclusion and consecutively treated with Lefort-1 maxillary advancement and mandibular setback (BSSO) orthognathic surgery were included in this study. The speech sample was recorded with a digital audio tape recorder one day before surgery and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months after surgery. Three qualified and experienced speech and language pathologists evaluated articulation errors and intelligibility of speech samples. Repeated One-way analysis of variance was used to compare articulation proficiency and speech intelligibility at different time intervals.

Results

The substitution, omission, distortion and addition errors showed no significant changes at 3 months and 6 months. The total articulation errors decreased to zero at 9 months and no significant increase was observed till 18 months (P < 0.05). Speech intelligibility showed statistically non-significant improvement at any time interval. Cephalometric skeletal parameters SNA and N ḻ A°. were significantly correlated with addition and total articulation errors at 18 months follow up.

Conclusions

The ortho-surgical treatment improves speech (decreases. articulation errors) in most of the patients usually 6-9 months post-surgery. Speech intelligibility is not affected by bimaxillary orthognathic surgery in skeletal class III patients. The articulation errors were correlated to changes in position of maxilla.

Rhinoplasty and Le Fort I Maxillary Osteotomy in Cleft Patients

INTRODUCTION

Cleft patients often need orthognathic surgery to correct maxillary hypoplasia and rhinoplasty to correct nasal deformity. Rhinoplasty can be performed as a staged procedure after orthognathic surgery or simultaneously with maxillary osteotomy.

AIM

The authors evaluated need for and complications of staged and simultaneous rhinoplasties in patients with different cleft types undergoing maxillary osteotomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study examined 99 (54 females) consecutive nonsyndromic patients with cleft lip/palate [23 bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP), 51 unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP), and 25 cleft palate (CP)] with a mean age of 17.8 (range: 11.5-45.3) years who had undergone Le Fort I maxillary advancement or bimaxillary osteotomy at the Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between 2002 and 2016. Medical charts were accessed through the hospital's archives and database.

RESULTS

Of patients who underwent maxillary osteotomy, 45% (45/99) needed rhinoplasty (14 BCLP, 27 UCLP, and 4 CP). A significant difference (P<0.01) existed in the need for rhinoplasty between different cleft types, those with BCLP and UCLP needing the most operations (60% and 53%). In 20 patients (20%), rhinoplasty was performed simultaneously with maxillary osteotomy, and in 25 patients (25%) in a second operation after osteotomy. The overall complication rate was 14%. No difference existed in complication rate in patients with or without simultaneous rhinoplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

Of cleft patients who underwent maxillary osteotomy, 45% needed rhinoplasty. Patients with BCLP and UCLP needed rhinoplasty most often. Staged and simultaneous procedures were almost equally common with similar complication rates.

Long-term speech outcome after anterior distraction osteogenesis of the maxilla in patients with cleft lip and palate

Advancement of the maxilla may increase the distance between the soft palate and the posterior pharyngeal wall in patients with cleft lip and palate, implying a risk of velopharyngeal dysfunction. The aim was to evaluate long-term speech outcome in a consecutive series of patients treated with distraction osteogenesis (DO). Fourteen out of the 16 patients agreed to participate. A long-term speech follow-up was performed 1.5 to 13.5 years after DO. For two participants, audio recordings before DO were missing, and for another one, it was incomplete. The percentage of consonants correct (PCC) based on phonetic transcription and perceived velopharyngeal competence rated on a three-point scale were assessed before and after DO by three independent judges, based on audio recordings of reading of standardised sentences. Also, the participants were asked how they perceived their speech after DO. Changes in PCC were insignificant. Four participants perceived deteriorated speech related to DO. In two cases, the subjective deterioration did not correlate to results from perceptual assessment. In two others, the subjective deterioration correlated with the perceptual assessment, and the velopharyngeal function was judged as being incompetent after DO. After secondary velopharyngeal surgery, velopharyngeal function improved to competent in one case and marginally incompetent in the other. The results need to be interpreted with caution due to methodological limitations but indicate that some patients develop deteriorated velopharyngeal function after DO. The impact on articulation needs to be further explored. It is important that patients are informed before treatment of the risk of velopharyngeal dysfunction after DO.

How differences in anatomy and physiology and other aetiology affect the way we label and describe speech in individuals with cleft lip and palate

BACKGROUND

Speech in individuals with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) is a complex myriad of presenting symptoms. It is uniquely associated with the structural difference of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), together with a wide and heterogeneous range of other aetiologies which often co-occur. The nature of the speech sound disorder (SSD) including VPI may also change over the course of an individual's care pathway. Differences in terminology and approaches to analysis are currently used, resulting in confusion internationally. Additionally, current diagnostic labels and classification systems in SSD do not capture the complexity and full nature of speech characteristics in CLP.

AIMS

This paper aims to explore the different aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech and to relate aetiology with speech characteristic(s). In so doing, it attempts to unravel the different terminology used in the field, describing commonalities and differences, and identifying overlaps with the speech summary patterns used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The paper also aims to explore the applicability of current diagnostic labels and classification systems in the non-cleft SSD literature and illustrate certain implications for speech intervention in CLP.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The different aetiologies were identified from the literature and mapped onto cleft palate/VPI speech characteristics. Different terminology and approaches to analysis are defined and overlaps described. The applicability of current classification systems in SSD is discussed including additional diagnostic labels proposed in the field.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

Aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech identified include developmental (cognitive-linguistic), middle ear disease and fluctuating hearing loss, altered oral structure, abnormal facial growth, VPI-structural (abnormal palate muscle) and VPI-iatrogenic (maxillary advancement surgery). There are four main terminologies used to describe cleft palate/VPI speech: active/passive and compensatory/obligatory, which overlap with the four categories used in the UK speech summary patterns: anterior oral cleft speech characteristics (CSCs), posterior oral CSCs, non-oral CSCs and passive CSCs, although not directly comparable. Current classification systems in non-cleft SSD do not sufficiently capture the full nature and complexity of cleft palate/VPI speech.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Our attempt at identifying the heterogeneous range of aetiologies provides clinicians with a better understanding of cleft palate/VPI speech to inform the management pathway and the nature and type of speech intervention required. We hope that the unravelling of the different terminology in relation to the UK speech summary patterns, and those used elsewhere, reduces confusion and provides more clarity for clinicians in the field. Diagnostic labels and classification require international agreement.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Speech associated with cleft palate/velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) is a complex myriad of speech characteristics with a wide and heterogeneous range of aetiologies. Different terminology and speech summary patterns are used to describe the speech characteristics. The traditional classification of cleft palate/VPI speech is Articulation Disorder, although evidence is building for Phonological Disorder and contrastive approaches in cleft speech intervention. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper explores the range of aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech (e.g., altered oral structure, abnormal facial growth, abnormal palate muscle and iatrogenic aetiologies) and attempts to relate aetiology with speech characteristic(s). An attempt is made at unravelling the different terminology used in relation to a well-known and validated approach to analysis, used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Complexities of current diagnostic labels and classifications in Speech Sound Disorder to describe cleft palate/VPI speech are discussed. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? There needs to be a common language for describing and summarising cleft palate/VPI speech. Speech summary patterns based on narrow phonetic transcription and correct identification of aetiology are essential for the accurate classification of the speech disorder and identification of speech intervention approaches. There is an urgent need for research to identify the most appropriate type of contrastive (phonological) approach in cleft lip and/or palate.

Speech assessment following microsurgical soft palate repair

The aim of this study was to analyze speech intelligibility of children, who had undergone microsurgical soft palate repair according to Sommerlad. Cleft palate patients were treated by closure of the soft palate according to Sommerlad at about 6 months of age. At the age of 11, their speech was evaluated through automatic speech recognition. Word recognition rate (WR) was used as the outcome parameter of automatic speech recognition. To validate automatic speech results, an institute for speech therapy evaluated the speech samples for perceptual intelligibility. The results of this study group were compared to an age-matched control group. A total of 61 children were evaluated in this study, 29 in the study group and 32 in the control group. Study group patients had a lower word recognition rate (mean 43.03, SD 12.31) compared to the control group (mean 49.98, SD 12.54, p = 0.033). The magnitude of the difference was considered small (95% CI of the difference 0.6-13.3). The study group patients received significantly lower scores in the perceptual evaluation (mean 1.82, SD 0.58) compared to the control group mean (mean 1.51, SD 0.48, p = 0.028). Again, the magnitude of the difference was small (95% CI of the difference 0.03-0.57). Within the limitations of the study it seems that microsurgical soft palate repair according to Sommerlad at the age of 6 months might be a relevant alternative to other well established surgical techniques.

What Is the Effect of Maxillary Impaction Orthognathic Surgery on Voice Characteristics? A Quasi-Experimental Study

Background

Regarding the impact of orthognathic surgery on the airway and voice, this study was carried out to investigate the effects of maxillary impaction surgery on patients' voices through acoustic analysis and articulation assessment.

Methods

This quasi-experimental, before-and-after, double-blind study aimed at examining the effects of maxillary impaction surgery on the voice of orthognathic surgery patients. Before the surgery, a speech therapist conducted acoustic analysis, which included fundament frequency (F0), Jitter, Shimmer, and the harmonic-to-noise ratio (HNR), as well as first, second, and third formants (F1, F2, and F3). The patient's age, sex, degree of maxillary deformity, and impaction were documented in a checklist. Voice analysis was repeated during follow-up appointments at one and six months after the surgery in a blinded manner. The data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 23, and the significance level was set at 0.05.

Results

Twenty two patients (18 females, 4 males) were examined, with ages ranging from 18 to 40 years and an average age of 25.54 years. F2, F3, HNR, and Shimmer demonstrated a significant increase over the investigation period compared to the initial phase of the study (P <0.001 for each). Conversely, the Jitter variable exhibited a significant decrease during the follow-up assessments in comparison to the initial phase of the study (P< 0.001).

Conclusion

Following maxillary impaction surgery, improvements in voice quality were observed compared to the preoperative condition. However, further studies with larger samples are needed to confirm the relevancy.

Relapse-related factors of Le Fort I osteotomy in cleft lip and palate patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review search was based on the PICOS approach, as follows: population: cleft lip and palate patients; intervention: Le Fort I osteotomy; comparator: different surgical protocols; outcome: stability, recurrence or surgical complications; study designs: only case reports were excluded from the review. No restrictions were placed on language or year of publication. Risk of bias was analyzed, heterogeneity was assessed, and subgroup analysis was performed using a level of significance of 1% (p = 0.01). The search identified 248 citations, from which 29 studies were selected and a total of 797 patients enrolled. The level of agreement between the authors was considered excellent (k = 0.810 for study selection and k = 0.941 for study eligibility). Our results reported a mean maxillary advancement of 5.69 mm, a mean vertical downward/upward of 2.85/-2.02 mm and a mean clockwise rotation of 4.15°. Greater surgical relapse rates were reported for vertical downward movement (-1.13 mm, 39.6%), followed by clockwise rotation (-1.41°, 33.9%), sagittal (-0.99 mm, 17.4%) and vertical upward (0.11 mm, 5.4%) movements. No relevance was found regarding the type of cleft, the type of Le Fort I osteotomy, concomitant bone grafting, surgical overcorrection, postoperative rigid or elastic intermaxillary fixation, or retention splint. Study limitations were heterogeneity and the low number of high-quality studies. In spite of reported high relapse rates, Le Fort I osteotomy for maxillary reposition is the first-choice procedure for selected cleft lip and palate patients in whom extensive maxillary movements are not required, because of its safety and its three-dimensional movement versatility in one-step surgery. Otherwise, distraction osteogenesis should be considered as the gold standard treatment.

Le Fort I Osteotomy in Cleft Patients: Maxillary Advancement and Articulation

BACKGROUND

Maxillary advancement may affect speech in cleft patients.

AIMS

To examine whether the amount of maxillary advancement and preoperativecephalometric skeletal and dentoalveolar relationships are associated with articulation errors of the Finnish alveolar consonants /s/, /l/, and /r/ in cleft patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-seven nonsyndromic cleft patients who underwent Le Fort I or bimaxillary osteotomies were evaluated retrospectively. Pre- and post-operative lateral cephalometric radiographs and standardized speech video recordings were analyzed. The Aspin-Welch unequal variance t test, Student t test sign test, intraclass correlation and Kappa statistics were used in the statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The mean advancement of the maxilla (point A) was 4.65 mm horizontally (range -2.80 to 11.30) and -3.82 mm vertically (range -14.20 to 3.90). The overall articulation (especially the sounds /s/ and /l/) improved significantly postoperatively, but the amount of maxillary advancement did not affect the articulation. The preoperative mean percentages of /s/, /l/, and /r/ errors were 32%, 33%, 46% and the postoperative percentages 23%, 19%, 40%, respectively. Preoperative articulation errors of /s/ were related to palatal inclination of the upper incisors.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthognathic surgery may improve articulation errors. The amount of maxillary advancement is not related to the improvement.

The Relationship Between Maxillary Growth and Speech in Children With a Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate at 5 Years of Age

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to investigate the association between maxillary growth and speech outcomes for children with a repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) at 5 years of age.

PARTICIPANTS

In all, 521 children (180 females and 341 males) with a nonsyndromic complete UCLP, born between 2007 and 2012 in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland were included in this study.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Maxillary growth was analyzed using dental models scored by the 5-Year-Olds' index, and perceptual speech analyses were scored by the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech - Augmented rating.

RESULTS

Forty-one percent of the children achieved good maxillary growth (scores 1 and 2 on 5-Year-Old' index). Fifty percent of the children achieved normal speech (achieving UK speech standard 1). Maxillary growth was not found to have an impact on speech outcome when described by the 3 UK National Cleft Lip and Palate Speech Audit Outcome Standards. Analysis according to individual speech parameters showed dentalizations to be less prevalent in children with good maxillary growth compared to fair and poor growth (P = .001). The remaining speech parameters within resonance, nasal airflow, and articulation categories were not significantly associated with maxillary growth.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study suggest that children with a history of complete UCLP, who have poor maxillary growth, are not at a higher risk of having major speech errors compared to children with good or fair maxillary growth at 5 years of age.