Speech performance and oral impairments with lingual and labial orthodontic appliances in the first stage of fixed treatment

Abstract

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.

Effects of fixed labial orthodontic appliances on speech sound production

“…However, our findings were consistent with those of the Khattab et al 14 randomized controlled study (although to a lesser degree than those treated with lingual appliances), in which all of patients accommodated the appliances within weeks. 6,14 As in earlier studies, [16][17][18] the phonemic errors seen, /s/ and /t/, were most commonly affected by the presence of labial fixed appliances. There are differences between how obstructions are caused by malocclusion and by labial appliances, but comparisons can be made, as /s/ and /t/ were the most affected phonemes in this study as well as in other studies.…”

“…[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Such studies have described a transient effect, with acquired errors resolved within 2 to 3 months. [2][3][4]14 The phonemes acknowledged to present lingering difficulties with articulation are /s/, /f/, /v/, /t/, /r/, /n/, and /l/ phonemes. 5,6,14 Feldman 15 presented the sole article containing data on the effects of labial fixed appliances in 1956 and reported an increase in errors immediately after appliance insertion, with resolution within weeks.…”

“…[2][3][4]14 The phonemes acknowledged to present lingering difficulties with articulation are /s/, /f/, /v/, /t/, /r/, /n/, and /l/ phonemes. 5,6,14 Feldman 15 presented the sole article containing data on the effects of labial fixed appliances in 1956 and reported an increase in errors immediately after appliance insertion, with resolution within weeks. Though useful, this study presents several shortcomings: small sample size, appliance variability, lack of sound error type and uniformity in evaluating sample readings, a lack of adult patients, and, finally, a lack of attention to malocclusions that may predispose one to maladaptation.…”

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

“…A larger space for the air outflow tract or the overcontouring of the anterior palatal area may result in a decrease of the UBF. 10,13,14 For the HR group, the decrease of the UBF for the /s/ sound could be explained in two ways. First, the area of air outflow tract was enlarged.…”

“…9 Typical approaches to evaluate the phonetic effect exerted by lingual appliances include (1) a questionnaire, which is a common subjective method to evaluate the change on articulation of speech; and (2) subjective speech pathology examination. Khattab et al 10 compared the levels of oral impairment between fixed lingual and labial orthodontic appliances by auditive analysis. However, no one has made a comparison of the effects exerted by HR and VFR.…”