Literature DB >> 27557042

Speech effects of Hawley and vacuum-formed retainers by acoustic analysis: A single-center randomized controlled trial.

Jia Wan, Tong Wang, Xibo Pei, Qianbing Wan, Wenkun Feng, Junyu Chen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of alteration on speech articulation of adult patients between Hawley retainers and vacuum-formed retainers by an objective acoustic analysis of vowels and voiceless fricatives.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty adults, aged 19.0-29.0 years, who had just finished active orthodontic treatment were included in this study. They were divided into a Hawley retainer group and a vacuum-formed retainer group by sortation randomization method. The assessment of speech sounds was performed objectively using acoustic analysis before and after retainer application at the following time points: before wearing (T0), immediately after wearing (T1), and at 24 hours (T2), 1 week (T3), 1 month (T4), and 3 months (T5).
RESULTS: The production of /з:/, /i:/, /f/, /θ/, /s/, and /∫/ sounds for the Hawley retainer group and /i:/, /θ/, /s/, and /∫/ sounds for the vacuum-formed retainer group showed severe speech impairment according to acoustic analysis (P < .05). A comparison of the Hawley retainer group with the vacuum-formed retainer group revealed that the performance of /i:/, /f/, and /s/ sounds were significantly different (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: Although sound distortion could be found in both the Hawley retainer group and the vacuum-formed retainer group, changes in articulation were more obvious in the Hawley retainer group.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acoustic analysis; Hawley retainer; Speech articulation; Vacuum-formed retainer

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27557042     DOI: 10.2319/012716-76.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  5 in total

1.  Level of satisfaction in the use of the wraparound Hawley and thermoplastic maxillary retainers.

Authors:  Adenilson Silva Chagas; Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas; Rodrigo Hermont Cançado; Fabricio Pinelli Valarelli; Luiz Filiphe Gonçalves Canuto; Renata Cristina Gobbi de Oliveira; Ricardo Cesar Gobbi de Oliveira
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Comparison of Dentoskeletal Changes, Esthetic, and Functional Efficacy of Conventional and Novel Esthetic Twin Block Appliances among Class II Growing Patients: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Tulika Tripathi; Navneet Singh; Priyank Rai; Prateek Gupta
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2020-06-01

Review 3.  Development of a clinical practice guideline for orthodontic retention.

Authors:  Cleo Wouters; Toon A Lamberts; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Anne Marie Renkema
Journal:  Orthod Craniofac Res       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 1.826

4.  Evaluation of the C-lingual Retractor and the Conventional Lingual Orthodontic Brackets in Terms of Speech Performance and Oral Discomfort: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Tarek Z Khattab; Mohammad Y Hajeer; Hassan Farah
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-04-02

5.  A two-year comparative assessment of retention of arch width increases between modified vacuum-formed and Hawley retainers: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Asma Ashari; Nik Mukhriz Nik Mustapha; Jonathan Jun Xian Yuen; Zhi Kuan Saw; May Nak Lau; Lew Xian; Alizae Marny Fadzlin Syed Mohamed; Rohaya Megat Abdul Wahab; Chiew Kit Yeoh; Malathi Deva Tata; Sindhu Sinnasamy
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 3.247

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.