Nasalance in patients with maxillary defects - Reconstruction versus obturation.
Eckardt A., Teltzrow T., Schulze A., Hoppe M., Kuettner C.
Prospective Study with a reported sample of 88, published in J Craniomaxillofac Surg (2007) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Prospective Study
- Journal
- J Craniomaxillofac Surg (2007)
- Country
- Scotland
- Reported sample size
- 88
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 17870609
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jcms.2007.07.001
Abstract (original English)
An important question remains on how to obtain good quality of speech for patients needing maxillectomy. Oral and nasal spaces must be separated either by surgical means or by using an obturator-prosthesis. An objective measure of oronasal closure is nasalance. Different rehabilitative strategies should be compared. Between 1990 and 2000, 88 patients underwent maxillectomy of which 28 (32%) were available for examination. Ten patients had obturators (group l) and in 18 patients the maxilla was biologically reconstructed with different techniques (group 2). Sound pressure of nasal and oral airways were assessed seperately using a computerized sampling system (NasalView) and standardized German texts. Nasalance was calculated and compared with an uncompromised sample of patients. There were no significant differences between group 1 and group 2 concerning nasalance. Furthermore, the achieved values of nasalance were similar to healthy individuals. Nasalance after maxillectomy can be normal after sufficient rehabilitation.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.