Orofacial Dysfunction In Cleft And Non-Cleft Patients Using Nordic Orofacial Test - A Screening Study

Orofacial dysfunction in cleft lip and palate patients using the nordic orofacial test-screening

INTRODUCTION

The Nordic Orofacial Test-Screening (NOT-S) protocol serves as a widely recognized tool for assessing orofacial dysfunction comprehensively. This study aimed to compare orofacial dysfunction between unilateral (UCLP) and bilateral (BCLP) cleft lip and palate patients using the NOT-S.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This descriptive cross-sectional study enrolled 104 patients, comprising 72 with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and 32 with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) referred to the cleft lip and palate clinic of Mashhad Dental School. Orofacial dysfunction was assessed using the Nordic Orofacial Test-Screening (NOT-S), which includes a structured interview and clinical examinations encompassing 6 domains each. Statistical analysis utilized Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact, and Chi-square tests, with significance set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in structured interview (P = 0.45), clinical examination (P = 0.45), or total NOT-S score (P = 0.11) between the two types of cleft lip and palate.

CONCLUSION

Based on NOT-S assessment, patients with unilateral (UCLP) and bilateral (BCLP) cleft lip and palate exhibited comparable orofacial dysfunctions. In the structured interview, the most prevalent issues were identified in the domain of chewing and swallowing for both cleft types. In clinical examination, unilateral cleft lip and palate patients commonly experienced facial problems at rest, while bilateral cleft lip and palate patients frequently encountered challenges with speaking. However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the "Protocolo de Avaliação Miofuncional Orofacial MBGR" from Brazilian Portuguese into English

In health-related research, an increasing number of clinical assessment tools are translated and cross-culturally adapted for cross-national and cross-cultural studies and comparisons. However, when translating and cross-culturally adapting clinical assessment tools for use across new countries, cultures, or languages, we must follow a thorough method to reach semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual equivalences between translated and original versions. Therefore, in this study, we translated and cross-culturally adapted the Protocolo MBGR (Marchesan, Berretin-Felix, Genaro, and Rehder) from Brazilian Portuguese into English, following international guidelines, and named it "MBGR Protocol." To verify its content validity, we used the Content Validity Index. Results indicated excellent content validity: a Scale-Content Validity Index of 0.96 and 97% of all translation units with an Item-Content Validity Index of 1.00. Also, to prove its face validity and confirm whether it worked in the target population's linguistic-cultural setting, we used it with 35 subjects. Again, results demonstrated excellent face validity: in the pretest, 91% of all translation units were considered comprehensible and clear; in the pilot test, 98% of all translation units were considered comprehensible and clear. Thus, we concluded that the MBGR Protocol is promising to enhance the uptake of studies in Orofacial Myology worldwide and support researchers and health professionals in assessing and diagnosing orofacial myofunctional disorders in children, adolescents, adults, and the elderly. Also, it may support evidence-based practice and assist in standardizing assessment and diagnostic criteria. The MBGR Protocol should have its psychometric properties tested before being used in clinical practice or scientific research. Therefore, future studies are needed, and collaborations among researchers from South and North American countries are encouraged to create an international network and advance with knowledge and skills in the Orofacial Myology discipline.