INTRODUCTION AND AIM: The logopedic examination according to Kittel (1998) is a method frequently used to diagnose tongue dysfunction. There has been a lack of reliable parameters to confirm this analysis. MR images visualize resting position and tongue movement as well as surrounding structures relevant to oral function. The aim of this study was to compare logopedic and MRI findings in evaluating tongue function and to assess whether MRI findings can replace logopedic examination for diagnostic purposes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 56 subjects were examined by the following methods: - Logopedic examination according to Kittel (1998) - MR images of the tongue resting position (T1-weighted) and deglutition process (2D-FIESTA technique) - MRI analysis according to Fujiki et al. (2000) RESULTS: We observed marked differences between the logopedic and MRI findings, yet there were no significant correlations between the logopedic outcome and distances measured via MRI in tongue resting position and swallowing patterns. CONCLUSION: We noted little concordance between logopedic findings according to Kittel and MRI analysis according to Fujiki et al. Which of these findings correctly reflects the actual clinical situation remains unclear.
INTRODUCTION AND AIM: The logopedic examination according to Kittel (1998) is a method frequently used to diagnose tongue dysfunction. There has been a lack of reliable parameters to confirm this analysis. MR images visualize resting position and tongue movement as well as surrounding structures relevant to oral function. The aim of this study was to compare logopedic and MRI findings in evaluating tongue function and to assess whether MRI findings can replace logopedic examination for diagnostic purposes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 56 subjects were examined by the following methods: - Logopedic examination according to Kittel (1998) - MR images of the tongue resting position (T1-weighted) and deglutition process (2D-FIESTA technique) - MRI analysis according to Fujiki et al. (2000) RESULTS: We observed marked differences between the logopedic and MRI findings, yet there were no significant correlations between the logopedic outcome and distances measured via MRI in tongue resting position and swallowing patterns. CONCLUSION: We noted little concordance between logopedic findings according to Kittel and MRI analysis according to Fujiki et al. Which of these findings correctly reflects the actual clinical situation remains unclear.