OBJECTIVES: To compare (1) speech performance based on an auditive analysis and sonagraphy and (2) levels of oral impairment between fixed lingual and labial orthodontic appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with Class I division 1 malocclusion and moderate crowding of upper teeth were distributed randomly into two groups. Seventeen patients in group A (mean age: 20.6 years; standard deviation [SD]: 2.9 years) were treated with fixed lingual appliances (Stealth®, AO, Sheboygan, Wisc), whereas 17 patients in group B (mean age: 21.8 years; SD: 3.3 years) were treated with conventional fixed labial appliances. Speech performance was tested using spectrographic analysis of fricative /s/ sound before, immediately after (T1), 1 month after, and 3 months after bracket placement. The levels of oral impairment were assessed using standardized questionnaires. RESULTS: A significant deterioration in articulation was recorded at all assessment times in group A but only at T1 in group B. Significant intergroup differences were recorded at all assessment times (P < .001). Speech difficulties were significantly higher in the lingual brackets group after 1 month of bracket placement (P < .001). Soft tissue irritation and chewing difficulty were significantly higher in the lingual appliance group after 24 hours of bracket placement (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The lingual appliance is more problematic than the labial one in terms of speech articulation. Although patients with both appliances suffered from different degrees of oral impairment, patients with lingual appliances had more untoward effects, particularly during the first month of treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To compare (1) speech performance based on an auditive analysis and sonagraphy and (2) levels of oral impairment between fixed lingual and labial orthodontic appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with Class I division 1 malocclusion and moderate crowding of upper teeth were distributed randomly into two groups. Seventeen patients in group A (mean age: 20.6 years; standard deviation [SD]: 2.9 years) were treated with fixed lingual appliances (Stealth®, AO, Sheboygan, Wisc), whereas 17 patients in group B (mean age: 21.8 years; SD: 3.3 years) were treated with conventional fixed labial appliances. Speech performance was tested using spectrographic analysis of fricative /s/ sound before, immediately after (T1), 1 month after, and 3 months after bracket placement. The levels of oral impairment were assessed using standardized questionnaires. RESULTS: A significant deterioration in articulation was recorded at all assessment times in group A but only at T1 in group B. Significant intergroup differences were recorded at all assessment times (P < .001). Speech difficulties were significantly higher in the lingual brackets group after 1 month of bracket placement (P < .001). Soft tissue irritation and chewing difficulty were significantly higher in the lingual appliance group after 24 hours of bracket placement (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The lingual appliance is more problematic than the labial one in terms of speech articulation. Although patients with both appliances suffered from different degrees of oral impairment, patients with lingual appliances had more untoward effects, particularly during the first month of treatment.
Authors: Mary Morgan Bitler Keyser; Hillary Lathrop; Samantha Jhingree; Natalie Giduz; Clare Bocklage; Sandrine Couldwell; Steven Oliver; Kevin Moss; Sylvia Frazier-Bowers; Ceib Phillips; Timothy Turvey; George Blakey; Ray White; Raymond P White; Dalton L McMichael; David Zajac; Jeff Mielke; Laura Anne Jacox Journal: FACE (Thousand Oaks) Date: 2022-03-14