PURPOSE: The restoration of speech after an extensive resection of the soft palate has been a challenge faced by both prosthodontists and surgeons. Few comparisons between prosthetic rehabilitations and surgical reconstructions of large soft palate defects exist in equally matched groups of patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate speech outcomes in patients with soft palate defects that were rehabilitated with either a pharyngeal obturator or surgical reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine patients who were treated via prosthetic obturation were compared to nine patients who underwent surgical reconstruction of the oropharynx with a radial forearm free flap and a soft palate insufficiency repair modification. Speech intelligibility data, perceptual ratings of resonance, and aeromechanical measurements of velopharyngeal function were collected. RESULTS: There were no differences in any of the speech outcome measures between the two groups of patients. CONCLUSION: Future studies should focus on the patient's perspective on rehabilitative options and potential quality of life issues.
PURPOSE: The restoration of speech after an extensive resection of the soft palate has been a challenge faced by both prosthodontists and surgeons. Few comparisons between prosthetic rehabilitations and surgical reconstructions of large soft palate defects exist in equally matched groups of patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate speech outcomes in patients with soft palate defects that were rehabilitated with either a pharyngeal obturator or surgical reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine patients who were treated via prosthetic obturation were compared to nine patients who underwent surgical reconstruction of the oropharynx with a radial forearm free flap and a soft palate insufficiency repair modification. Speech intelligibility data, perceptual ratings of resonance, and aeromechanical measurements of velopharyngeal function were collected. RESULTS: There were no differences in any of the speech outcome measures between the two groups of patients. CONCLUSION: Future studies should focus on the patient's perspective on rehabilitative options and potential quality of life issues.