PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15571712

Macroglossia: a case study.

Dennis M Ruscello·Cara Douglas·Tabitha Tyson·Mark Durkee
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

UNLABELLED: A young child with macroglossia of unknown cause was seen for treatment to modify resting tongue posture and improve speech sound production. Evaluation of the treatments indicated positive change in resting tongue posture and a modest change in speech sound production. Treatment for such patients can be complex and must consider orthodontic and/or surgical interventions, because an enlarged tongue can influence growth, development, and physiology of the oropharyngeal complex. The speech-language pathologist must be prepared to deal with the complex of problems demonstrated by patients with macroglossia during growth and development. LEARNING OUTCOMES: (1) As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to describe the sequelae of macroglossia. (2) As a result of this activity, the participant will be able to identify appropriate treatment options for children with macroglossia.

Explore related subjects

Articulation DisordersChild, PreschoolHumansMaleSpeech Production MeasurementSpeech TherapyTongueCase ReportsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dennis M Ruscello, Cara Douglas, Tabitha Tyson, Mark Durkee. Macroglossia: a case study.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.06.001

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

[Validated diagnostics for dysgrammatism].

BACKGROUND: Non-standardized procedures are used to evaluate, in particular, grammatical performance in most German institutions performing diagnostic procedures on children with impaired speech and language development. This makes a comparison of results difficult. METHODS: We studied 181 boys and 72 girls aged between 5 and 6 years using four subtests of IDIS additionally to the routine procedure. Results were compared to the "degree of dysgrammatism" determined from the traditional evaluation based on expert rating. RESULTS: The new procedure is able to divide the children into groups with normal speech and language ability, with deficits accessible to a traditional logopedic treatment, and with severe speech and language impairment that necessitates intensive treatment. DISCUSSION: The proposed tests allow an accurate evaluation of grammatical performance instead of subjective estimates.

Articulation Disorders↗
PubMed2006

Speech evaluation and dental arch shape following pushback palatoplasty in cleft palate patients: Supraperiosteal flap technique versus mucoperiosteal flap technique.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the maxillary dental arch shape and speech of cleft palate patients following pushback palatoplasty using either the supraperiosteal flap technique or the mucoperiosteal flap technique. PATIENTS: Sixty-two patients (29, cleft palate only; 33, unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate) operated on by the supraperiosteal technique and 47 patients (23, cleft palate only; 24 unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate) by the mucoperiosteal technique were reviewed in this study. STUDY DESIGN: Dental arch shape and speech proficiency at preschool and school age were evaluated in all patients. RESULTS: Dental arch shapes were classified as U type (good dental arch shape) and V type (narrow dental arch shape). In cleft palate only patients, U type was observed in 90% of the supraperiosteal group and 83% of the mucoperiosteal group. In unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate patients, U type was observed in 85% of the supraperiosteal group, while only in 33% of the mucoperiosteal group. In cleft palate only patients, normal speech at school age was observed 100% of the supraperiosteal group and 83% of the mucoperiosteal group. In unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate patients, normal speech at school age was observed in 97% of the supraperiosteal group and 75% of the mucoperiosteal group. Misarticulation was frequently found in patients with the V type of dental arch shape. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that pushback palatoplasty using the supraperiosteal technique is more advantageous for speech development compared with the mucoperiosteal technique.

Articulation Disorders↗