Relationship between Anatomical and Physiological Problems with Speech Problems in Turkish-Speaking Children with Cleft Lip and Palate

Year 2024, Volume: 34 Issue: 4, 115 - 123, 31.12.2024

Namık Yücel Birol , Özlem Ünal Logacev

https://doi.org/10.26650/Tr-ENT.2024.1598499

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the speech and resonance characteristics of Turkish-speaking children with cleft lip and palate (CLP) and to investigate the relationship between oral anatomical-physiological problems and speech-resonance problems.

Materials and Methods: 40 Turkish-speaking children with CLP between the ages of 3 and 15 underwent oral-motor evaluation, nasometric evaluation (The Nasometric Assessment Tool-Turkish), articulation evaluation (sentence repetition test), and perceptual resonance evaluation.

Results: The most common speech errors seen in the participants were backing, differentiation of glides, voicing errors, labialisation, nasalisation, palatalisation, dentalisation and lateralisation. 35% of the participants had normal resonance, while the remaining 65% had resonance-airflow problems. A significant relationship was found between hypernasality and nasalisation, weak articulation, and double articulation. A significant relationship was found between class III malocclusion and dentalisation, lateralisation, bilabialisation; crossbite and lateralisation; missing teeth and dentalisation, palatalisation, fronting.

Conclusion: There is a relationship between dental and occlusal anomalies and speech errors and between hypernasality and speech errors. In addition to articulation errors, phonological processes may also be present in Turkish-speaking children with CLP. The results of this study can be taken into consideration by speech and language therapists while conducting assessments and providing interventions for Turkish-speaking children with CLP.

Keywords

Cleft palate, speech disorders, speech sound disorder

Thanks

We would like to thank the speech and language therapists Özlem Ergüvenli and Fatma Nerse for their support during the assessments.

References

• 1. Martinelli M, Palmieri A, Carinci F, Scapoli L. Non-syndromic Cleft Palate: An Overview on Human Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors. Front Cell Dev Biol 2020;8:592271. google scholar
• 2. Tomatir AG, Demirhan H, Sorkun HC, Koksal A, Ozerdem F, Cilengir N. Major congenital anomalies: a five-year retrospective regional study in Turkey. Genet Mol Res 2009;8(1):19-27. google scholar
• 3. Türkbay D, Canpolat FE, Derme T, Altuğ N, Yılmaz Y. The birth prevalence of selected major congenital anomalies: Six-year’s experience in a tertiary care maternity hospital. Türk Pediatri Arşivi 2020;55(4):393-400. google scholar
• 4. Pereira VJ, Sell D. How differences in anatomy and physiology and other aetiology affect the way we label and describe speech in individuals with cleft lip and palate. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2024;59(6):2181-96. google scholar
• 5. Alighieri C, Haeghebaert Y, Bettens K, Kissel I, D’haeseleer E, Meerschman I, et al. Peer attitudes towards adolescents with speech disorders due to cleft lip and palate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2023;165:111447. google scholar
• 6. Kummer AW. Cleft palate and craniofacial conditions: a comprehensive guide to clinical management. Fourth edition. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2020. 629 p. google scholar
• 7. Chacon A, Parkin M, Broome K, Purcell A. Australian children with cleft palate achieve age-appropriate speech by 5 years of age. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017;103:93-102. google scholar
• 8. Albustanji YM, Albustanji MM, Hegazi MM, Amayreh MM. Prevalence and types of articulation errors in Saudi Arabic-speaking children with repaired cleft lip and palate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014;78(10):1707-15. google scholar
• 9. Klintö K, Salameh EK, Lohmander A. Phonology in Swedish-speaking 5-year-olds born with unilateral cleft lip and palate and the relationship with consonant production at 3 years of age. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2016;18(2):147-56. google scholar
• 10. Nachmani A, Masalha M, Kassem F. Phonological Profile of Patients With Velopharyngeal Dysfunction and Palatal Anomalies. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2021;64(12):4649-63. google scholar
• 11. Scherer N, Yamashita R, Fukushiro A, Oliveira D, Keske-Soares M, Ingram D, et al. Assessment of early phonological development in children with clefts in Brazilian Portuguese. In: Under-Reported Monolingual Child Phonology. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters; 2020. p. 400-21. google scholar
• 12. Tezel Ö. Yarık damaklı türk çocuklarının sesletim, işitsel ayrımlaştırma ve sesbilgisel özelliklerinin belirlenmesi. Master’s Thesis. Anadolu University; 2004. https://www.proquest.com/ dissertations-theses/yarık-damaklı-türk-çocuklarının-sesletim-işitsel/docview/2607558993/se-2 google scholar
• 13. Ünal-Logacev Ö, Kazanoğlu D, Balo E, Nemutlu A. Cleft Lip and Palate Assessment Form: Medical History, Oral-peripheral Characteristics, Speech Problems. Turk J Plast Surg 2018;26(4):156-68. google scholar
• 14. Dinsever Eliküçük Ç, Kulak Kayıkcı ME, Esen Aydınlı F, Çalış M, Özgür FF, Öztürk M, et al. Investigation of the speech results of posterior pharyngeal wall augmentation with fat grafting for treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2017;45(6):891-6. google scholar
• 15. Ünal-Logacev Ö, Kummer AW, Çetin C, Topbaş S. Nasometric evaluation of resonance disorders: A norm study In Turkish. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020;131:109888. google scholar
• 16. MacKay I, Kummer A. The MacKay-Kummer SNAP Test-R Simplified Nasometric Assessment Procedures (Revised 2005). Instruction manual: Nasometer Model 6450. Kay Elemetrics Corp; 2005. google scholar
• 17. Akoglu H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 2018;18(3):91-3. google scholar
• 18. Mason KN. The Effect of Dental and Occlusal Anomalies on Articulation in Individuals With Cleft Lip and/or Cleft Palate. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups 2020;5(6):1492-504. google scholar
• 19. Buller M, Jodeh D, Qamar F, Wright J, Halsey J, Rottgers S. Cleft Palate Fistula: A Review. Eplasty 2023;1(23):e7. google scholar
• 20. Bykowski MR, Naran S, Winger DG, et al. The rate of oronasal fistula following primary cleft palate surgery: a meta-analysis. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J 2015;52(4):E81-7. google scholar
• 21. Hardwicke JT, Landini G, Richard BM. Fistula incidence after primary cleft palate repair: a systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;134(4):618e-27e. google scholar
• 22. Jodeh DS, Nguyen ATH, Rottgers SA. Outcomes of Primary Palatoplasty: An Analysis Using the Pediatric Health Information System Database. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;143(2):533-9. google scholar
• 23. Topbaş S. Turkish Speech Acquisition. In: International Guide to Speech Acquisition. Clifton Park, NY, USA: Thomson Delmar Learning; 2007. p. 566-79. google scholar
• 24. Bruneel L, Alighieri C, D’haeseleer E, Kissel I, Adriaansen A, Sseremba D, et al. Reliability results of perceptual ratings of resonance, nasal airflow and speech acceptability in patients with cleft palate by Ugandan speech-language pathologists following a two-day workshop. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2020;136:110191. google scholar