Efficacy of speech aid prostheses for acquired defects of the soft palate and velopharyngeal inadequacy - Clinical assessments and cephalometric analysis: A memorial sloan-kettering study

Head and Neck

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 195-207

  Bohle III, George ^a   Rieger, Jana ^b   Huryn, Joseph ^a   Verbel, David ^a   Hwang, Freeman ^a,c   Zlotolow, Ian ^a,d  

^a MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b Misericordia Community Hospital   (Canada)

^c School of Dentistry ^*  (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Acquired defects of the soft palate; Cephalometric angle; Maxillofacial prosthodontics; Speech aid prosthesis; Velopharyngeal inadequacy

Indexed keywords

TRACER;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SURGERY; CEPHALOMETRY; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEAD AND NECK SURGERY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NASOPHARYNX; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PALATE DISEASE; PALATOPHARYNGEAL INCOMPETENCE; PHARYNX; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS; SOFT PALATE; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; TONGUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CEPHALOMETRY; FEMALE; HEAD AND NECK NEOPLASMS; HUMANS; MALE; MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS; MIDDLE AGED; PALATAL OBTURATORS; VELOPHARYNGEAL INSUFFICIENCY;

EID: 14644429065     PISSN: 10433074     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hed.10360     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. th ed. J Prost Dent 1999;81:39-110 Copyright 1999 by Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Mosby. Clifford W. Van Blarcom- Chairman of the Nomenclature Committee of The Academy of Prosthodontics.
2. Warren D, Dubois A. A pressure-flow technique for measuring velopharyngeal orifice area during continuous speech. Cleft Palate J 1964;1:52-71.
3. Warren D, Hairfield W, Seaton D, Hinton V. The relationship between nasal airway cross-sectional area and nasal resistance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987;92:390-395.
4. Yorkston K, Beukelman D. Assessment of intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Portland, OR: CC Publications; 1981.
5. Fletcher SG. Contingencies for bioelectric modification of nasality. J Speech Hear Dis 1972;37:329-346.
6. Sataloff RT, Abaza MM. Impairment, disability, and other medical-legal aspects of dysphonia. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2000;33:1143-1152.
7. Wilson FB. Voice profile. Bellingham, WA: Voice Tapes, Inc.; 1990.
8. Witt PD, Berry LA, Marsh JL, Grames LM, Pilgram TK. Speech outcome following palatoplasty in primary school children: do lay peer observers agree with speech pathologists? Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;98:958-965.
9. Gillespie MB, Eisele DW. The uvulopalatal flap for reconstruction of the soft palate. Laryngoscope 2000;110:612-615.
10. Brown JS, Zuydam AC, Jones DC, Rogers SN, Vaughan ED. Functional outcome in soft palate reconstruction using a radial forearm free flap in conjunction with a superiorly based pharyngeal flap. Head Neck 1997;19:524-534.
11. Zeitels SM, Kim J. Soft-palate reconstruction with a "SCARF" superior-constrictor advancement-rotation flap. Laryngoscope 1998;108:1136-1140.
12. Yoshida H, Michi K, Yamashita Y, Ohno K. A comparison of surgical and prosthetic treatment for speech disorders attributable to surgically acquired soft palate defects. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1993;51:361-365.
13. Zohar Y, Buler N, Shvilli Y, Sabo R. Reconstruction of the soft palate by uvulopalatal flap. Laryngoscope 1998;108:47-50.
14. Georgantopoulou AA, Thatte MR, Razzell RE, Watson ACH. The effect of sphincter pharyngoplasty on the range of velar movement. Br J Plast Surg 1996;49:358-362.
15. Roberts TMF, Brown BS. Evaluation of a modified sphincter pharyngoplasty in the treatment of speech problems due to palatal insufficiency. Ann Plast Surg 1983;10:209-213.
16. Pauloski BR, Logemann JA, Colangelo LA, et al. Surgical variables affecting speech in treated patients with oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Laryngoscope 1998;108:908-916.
17. Aram A, Subtelny JD. Velopharyngeal function and cleft palate prostheses. J Pros Dent 1959;9:149-158.
18. Baden E. Fundamental principles of orofacial prosthetic therapy in congenital cleft palate. Part II. Prosthetic treatment. J Pros Dent 1954;4:568-579.
19. Malson TS. Nonobstructing prosthetic speech aid during growth and orthodontic treatment. J Pros Dent 1957;7:403-415.
20. Lloyd RS, Pruzansky S, Subtelny JD. Prosthetic rehabilitation of a cleft palate patient subsequent to multiple surgical and prosthetic failures. J Pros Dent 1957;7:216-230.
21. Mazaheri M, Millard RT. Changes in nasal resonance related to differences in location and dimension of speech bulbs. Cleft Palate J 1964;2:167-175.
22. Witt PD, Miller DC, Marsh JL, Muntz HR, Grames LM, Pilgram TK. Perception of postpalatoplasty speech differences in school-age children by parents, teachers, and professional speech pathologists. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997;100:1655-1663.
23. Podol J, Salvia J. Effects of visibility of a prepalatal cleft on the evaluation of speech. Cleft Palate J 1976;13:361-366.
24. Turner GE, Williams WN. Fluoroscopy and nasoendoscopy in designing palatal lift prostheses. J Pros Dent 1991;66:63-71.
25. Riski J, Hoke JA, Dolan EA. The role of pressure flow and endoscopic assessment in successful palatal obturator revision. Cleft Palate J 1989;26:56-61.
26. Wong LP, Weiss CE. A clinical assessment of obturator-wearing cleft palate patients. J Pros Dent 1972;27:632-639.
27. Shelton RL, Lindquist AF, Chisum L, et al. Effect of prosthetic speech bulb reduction on articulation. Cleft Palate J 1968;5:195-204.
28. Stringer DA, Witzel MA. Comparison of multi-view video-fluoroscopy and nasopharyngoscopy in the assessment of velopharyngeal insufficiency. Cleft Palate J 1989;26:88-91.
29. Karnell MP, Rosenstein H, Fine L. Nasal videoendoscopy in prosthetic management of palatopharyngeal dysfunction. J Pros Dent 1987;58:479-484.
30. Bagnall AD, David DJ. Speech results of cleft palate surgery: two methods of assessment. Br J Plast Surg 1988;41:488-495.
31. Sheard C, Adams RD, Davis PJ. Reliability and agreement of ratings of ataxic dysarthric speech samples with varying intelligibility. J Speech Hear Disord 1991;34:285-293.