Observational studyCoDAS2025
Phonetic changes, dental occlusion and their relationships in individuals with cleft lip and palate undergoing orthognathic surgery.
Observational study in CoDAS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo verify changes in phonetic, nasometric and aerodynamic aspects of speech in individuals with cleft lip and palate and the influence of occlusion on these variables, before and after orthognathic surgery (OC) for maxillary advancement.
methodsRetrospective, observational, cross-sectional and analytical study. Fifty-one patients with previously repaired cleft lip and palate participated, 26 men and 25 women (x̅=31 years), who underwent maxillary advancement OC. The following were performed: assessment of phonetic and occlusal aspects, nasometry and aerodynamic assessment of velopharyngeal function (flow-pressure technique), before and after OC. The phonetic aspects were evaluated by 3 experienced judges.
resultsThere was high intra and inter judge agreement. There was a significant improvement in phonetic production after OC: in tongue interposition ([d], [t], [l], [n], [ʎ]), distortion ([f], [v]) and anterior lisp ([s], [z], [ʃ]). In the occlusal aspects, the overjet reached, on average, the normal values after the OC and there was an occlusal improvement in the anterior crossbite, openbite and overbite. Nasalance values were within the normal range after CO for the nasal text and there was an increase in nasalance, suggestive of hypernasality, in the oral text. There was no change in velopharyngeal closure, in the production of the word "rampa", suggestive of adequate velopharyngeal closure. Occlusion did not influence nasalance and velopharyngeal closure before or after maxillary advancement OC.
conclusionThere was a significant improvement in phonetic, occlusal and nasometric aspects after OC. However, none of the phones obtained 100% adequacy,reinforcing the importance of speech therapy after OC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.