Effects of fixed labial and lingual orthodontic appliances on speech sound production: A comparative in vivo study

Ahmed Danish Intesaab; Kalia Ajit; Nene Salil; Joshi Juhi; Adsure Girija

doi:10.5937/sejodr6-23904

Ahmed Danish Intesaab M.A.Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences & Research Centre, Department Of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Pune-1
Kalia Ajit M.A.Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences & Research Centre, Department Of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Pune-1
Nene Salil M.A.Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences & Research Centre, Department Of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Pune-1
Joshi Juhi M.A.Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences & Research Centre, Department Of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Pune-1
Adsure Girija M.A.Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences & Research Centre, Department Of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Pune-1

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/sejodr6-23904

Abstract

Introduction: The eventual esthetic solution for patients who do not want visible orthodontic appliance is the lingual orthodontic appliance. The result produced by the lingual orthodontic appliance is parallel to those produced by the labial orthodontic appliance. However, there is an articulation problem due to the position of the lingual brackets as there is a modification of the lingual surface of the teeth. Speech problems with each appliance are studied individually and extensively, but the comparison of both appliances regarding speech is very scanty.
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of fixed labial and lingual orthodontic appliance on speech sound production at a different time interval.
Materials and methods: A total number of 30 patients were included in this study, 15 patients were bonded with the fixed labial appliance (Group 1) and 15 patients were bonded with the fixed self-ligating lingual appliance (Group 2). Based on four types of errors (E1, E2, E3, E4), a total of nine groups of sounds (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9) were evaluated for each audiovisual sample at four different time intervals (T1, T2, T3, T4) by two different speech therapist individually in each group.
Results: A high degree of agreement was found between the two observers in both groups regarding the type of sound effected and the type of error during sound production. The total number of patients with effected speech is more in the lingual group compared to the labial group on the same day of bonding until six months in treatment.
Conclusion: The results of the present study demonstrated the following, the total number of patients with lingual appliance had more errors in speech compared to the labial appliance at the beginning of the treatment. Patients with lingual appliance required more time for adaptation concerning speech. A similar group of sounds was effected in both types of an appliance with a similar type of error. Patients with labial appliance showed more comfort and easier adaptation with the appliance. The anatomical location of the appliance plays an important role in speech alteration and adaptation. These findings should be considered before selecting an appliance for a particular patient.

References

Van Riper C. Speech correction: Principles and methods. New jersey: Prentice Hall, 1978. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/3567865

Caniklioglu C, Oztürk Y. Patient discomfort: a comparison between lingual and labial fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(1):86-91.

Gorman JC. Treatment of adults with lingual orthodontic appliances. Dent Clin North Am. 1988;32(3):589-620.

Gorman JC, Smith RJ. Comparison of treatment effects with labial and lingual fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;99(3):202-9.

Grauer D, Proffit WR. Accuracy in tooth positioning with a fully customized lingual orthodontic appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(3):433-43.

Pauls AH. Therapeutic accuracy of individualized brackets in lingual orthodontics. J Orofac Orthop. 2010;71(5):348-61. (English, German)

Marioti J, Subtelny JD, Baker R, Marioti M. The Speech Effect of the Lingual Appliance. Orange, Calif: ORMCO Co;1984. https://ormco.com › download › civ1-1984-01

Fujita K. Multilingual-bracket and mushroom arch wire technique. A clinical report. Am J Orthod. 1982;82(2):120-40.

Alexander CM, Alexander RG, Sinclair PM. Lingual orthodontics: a status report. Part 6. Patient and practice management. J Clin Orthod. 1983;17(4):240-6.

Smith JR, Gorman JC, Kurz C, Dunn RM. Keys to success in lingual therapy. Part 1. J Clin Orthod. 1986;20(4):252-61. Erratum in: J Clin Orthod 1986;20(9):604.

Sinclair PM, Cannito MF, Goates LJ, Solomos LF, Alexander CM.Patient responses to lingual appliances. J Clin Orthod. 1986;20(6):396-404.

Fillion D. Improving patient comfort with lingual brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1997;31(10):689-94.

Artun J. A post treatment evaluation of multibonded lingual appliances in orthodontics.Eur J Orthod. 1987;9(3):204-10.

Fritz U, Diedrich P, Wiechmann D. Lingual technique--patients' characteristics, motivation and acceptance. Interpretation of a retrospective survey. J Orofac Orthop. 2002;63(3):227-33. (English, German)

Wu A, McGrath C, Wong RW, Wiechmann D, Rabie AB.Comparison of oral impacts experienced by patients treated with labial or customized lingual fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(6):784-90.

Frowine VK, Moser H. Relationship of dentition and speech. Journal A.D.A. 1944; 31:1081-90.

Benediktsson, E. Variation in Tongue and Jaw Position in “S” Sound Production in Relation to Front Teeth Occlusion. Acta Odontol Scand, 1958;15(4), 275–304.

Hopkin GB. Orthodontic aspects of the diagnosis and management of speech defects in children. Proc R Soc Med. 1972;65(4):409-13.

Sayar G. Pain and chewing sensitivity during fixed orthodontic treatment in extraction and non-extraction patients. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017;51(2):23-28.

Van Lierde KM, Schepers S, Timmermans L, Verhoye I, Van Cauwenberge P. The impact of mandibular advancement on articulation, resonance and voice characteristics in Flemish speaking adults: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;35(2):137-44.

Johnson NC, Sandy JR. Tooth position and speech--is there a relationship? Angle Orthod. 1999;69(4):306-10.

Leavy KM, Cisneros GJ, LeBlanc EM. Malocclusion and its relationship to speech sound production: Redefining the effect of malocclusal traits on sound production. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(1):116-23.

Sergl HG, Klages U, Zentner A. Functional and social discomfort during orthodontic treatment--effects on compliance and prediction of patients' adaptation by personality variables. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(3):307-15.

Nanda RS, Kierl MJ. Prediction of cooperation in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;102(1):15-21.

Van Lierde KM, Luyten A, D'haeseleer E, Van Maele G, Becue L, Fonteyne E, Corthals P, De Pauw G. Articulation and oromyofunctional behavior in children seeking orthodontic treatment. Oral Dis. 2015;21(4):483-92.

Khattab TZ, Farah H, Al-Sabbagh R, Hajeer MY, Haj-Hamed Y. Speech performance and oral impairments with lingual and labial orthodontic appliances in the first stage of fixed treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(3):519-26.

Paley JS, Cisneros GJ, Nicolay OF, LeBlanc EM. Effects of fixed labial orthodontic appliances on speech sound production. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(3):462-7.

Rai KA, Ganeshkar SV, Rozario JE. Parametric and nonparametric assessment of speech changes in labial and lingual orthodontics: A prospectivestudy. APOS Trends in Orthodontics. 2013;3(4):99-109.

Papageorgiou SN, Gölz L, Jäger A, Eliades T, Bourauel C. Lingual vs. labial fixed orthodontic appliances: systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effects. Eur J Oral Sci. 2016;124(2):105-18.

Stamm T, Hohoff A, Ehmer U. A subjective comparison of two lingual bracket systems. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(4):420-6.

Slater RD. Speech and discomfort during lingual orthodontic treatment. J Orthod. 2013;40 Suppl 1:S34-7.

Subtelny JD, Mestre JC, Subtelny JD. Comparative study of normal and defective articulation of /s/ as related to malocclusion and deglutition. J Speech Hear Disord. 1964;29:269-85.

Vallino LD, Tompson B. Perceptual characteristics of consonant errors associated with malocclusion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;51(8):850-6.

Sahad M, Nahas A, Scavone H Jr, Jabur LB, Guedes-Pinto E. Vertical interincisal trespass assessment in children with speech disorders. Vertical interincisal trespass assessment in children with speech disorders. Brazilian Oral Research.2008; 22(3), 247-251.

Leme MS, De Souza Barbosa T, Gaviao MBD. Relationship among oral habits, orofacial function an oral health-related quality of life in children. Brazilian Oral Research.2013;27(3), 272-278.

Fairbanks G. Voice and Articulation Drillbook, 1st Edn. New York: Harper, 1960.