File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Speech outcome and velopharyngeal function in cleft palate: Comparison of Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis - Early results

TitleSpeech outcome and velopharyngeal function in cleft palate: Comparison of Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis - Early results
Authors
KeywordsCleft palate
Distraction osteogenesis
Osteotomy
Speech
Velopharyngeal insufficiency
Issue Date2007
PublisherAllen Press Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://cpcj.allenpress.com
Citation
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 2007, v. 44 n. 1, p. 23-32 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: To compare speech outcome and velopharyngeal (VP) status of subjects with repaired cleft palate who underwent either conventional Le Fort I osteotomy or maxillary distraction osteogenesis to correct maxillary hypoplasia. Design: Prospective randomized study with blind assessment of speech outcome and VP status. Subjects: Twenty-two subjects were randomized into conventional Le Fort I osteotomy and Le Fort I distraction groups. All were native Chinese (Cantonese) speakers. Method: Perceptual judgment of resonance and nasal emission, study of VP structures by nasoendoscopy, and instrumental measurement by nasometry. Assessments were performed preoperatively and at 3 months postoperatively. Main Outcome Measures: Assessment of VP closure, perceptual rating of hypernasality and nasal emission, nasalance, and amount of maxillary advancement. Results: There was no statistical difference in any of the outcome measures between the 10 subjects with conventional Le Fort I osteotomy and the 12 subjects with maxillary distraction: hypernasality (chi-square = 3.850, p = 0.221), nasal emission (chi-square = 0.687, p = 0.774), VP gap size (chi-square = 1.527, p = 0.635, and nasalance (f = -0.145, p = 0.886). There was no correlation between amount of maxillary advancement and any of the outcome measures (p = .05 for all). Changes in VP gap size and resonance are described. Conclusion: Results need to be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size and early follow-up. However, this study utilized an assessment protocol involving a variety of outcome measures and careful consideration of reliability factors, which can be a model for further and follow-up studies.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154438
ISSN
2010 Impact Factor: 0.77
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.685
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChanchareonsook, Nen_US
dc.contributor.authorWhitehill, TLen_US
dc.contributor.authorSamman, Nen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:25:20Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:25:20Z-
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.identifier.citationCleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 2007, v. 44 n. 1, p. 23-32en_US
dc.identifier.issn1055-6656en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/154438-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare speech outcome and velopharyngeal (VP) status of subjects with repaired cleft palate who underwent either conventional Le Fort I osteotomy or maxillary distraction osteogenesis to correct maxillary hypoplasia. Design: Prospective randomized study with blind assessment of speech outcome and VP status. Subjects: Twenty-two subjects were randomized into conventional Le Fort I osteotomy and Le Fort I distraction groups. All were native Chinese (Cantonese) speakers. Method: Perceptual judgment of resonance and nasal emission, study of VP structures by nasoendoscopy, and instrumental measurement by nasometry. Assessments were performed preoperatively and at 3 months postoperatively. Main Outcome Measures: Assessment of VP closure, perceptual rating of hypernasality and nasal emission, nasalance, and amount of maxillary advancement. Results: There was no statistical difference in any of the outcome measures between the 10 subjects with conventional Le Fort I osteotomy and the 12 subjects with maxillary distraction: hypernasality (chi-square = 3.850, p = 0.221), nasal emission (chi-square = 0.687, p = 0.774), VP gap size (chi-square = 1.527, p = 0.635, and nasalance (f = -0.145, p = 0.886). There was no correlation between amount of maxillary advancement and any of the outcome measures (p = .05 for all). Changes in VP gap size and resonance are described. Conclusion: Results need to be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size and early follow-up. However, this study utilized an assessment protocol involving a variety of outcome measures and careful consideration of reliability factors, which can be a model for further and follow-up studies.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherAllen Press Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://cpcj.allenpress.comen_US
dc.relation.ispartofCleft Palate-Craniofacial Journalen_US
dc.subjectCleft palate-
dc.subjectDistraction osteogenesis-
dc.subjectOsteotomy-
dc.subjectSpeech-
dc.subjectVelopharyngeal insufficiency-
dc.subject.meshAdolescenten_US
dc.subject.meshAdulten_US
dc.subject.meshCephalometryen_US
dc.subject.meshCleft Palate - Surgeryen_US
dc.subject.meshEndoscopyen_US
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_US
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshMaxilla - Abnormalities - Pathology - Surgeryen_US
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subject.meshOsteogenesis, Distractionen_US
dc.subject.meshOsteotomy, Le Fort - Classificationen_US
dc.subject.meshPalate, Soft - Pathology - Physiopathologyen_US
dc.subject.meshPharynx - Pathology - Physiopathologyen_US
dc.subject.meshProspective Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshReproducibility Of Resultsen_US
dc.subject.meshSingle-Blind Methoden_US
dc.subject.meshSpeech - Physiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcomeen_US
dc.subject.meshVoice Qualityen_US
dc.titleSpeech outcome and velopharyngeal function in cleft palate: Comparison of Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis - Early resultsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailWhitehill, TL:tara@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.emailSamman, N:nsamman@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityWhitehill, TL=rp00970en_US
dc.identifier.authoritySamman, N=rp00021en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1597/05-003en_US
dc.identifier.pmid17214524-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33846245101en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros128376-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33846245101&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume44en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.spage23en_US
dc.identifier.epage32en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000243465200004-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChanchareonsook, N=14046583100en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWhitehill, TL=7004098633en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSamman, N=7006413627en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats