Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2009; 03(03): 185-190
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697430
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Articulation Performance of Patients Wearing Obturators with Different Buccal Extension Designs

Suha Turkaslana
a   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
,
Timucin Baykul
b   Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
,
M. Asim Aydin
c   Department of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, S�leyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
,
M. Mustafa Ozarslan
a   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
 PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The primary goal of prosthetic obturation is closure of the maxillectomy defect and separation of the oral cavity from the sino-nasal cavities by use of different bulb designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the articulation performance of obturator patients with three different buccal extension designs.

Methods: Five patients with palatal defects of comparable sizes at ages ranging from 42 to 74 were evaluated. Starting at postoperative 4 months, speech intelligibility (SI) was assessed without a prosthetic obturator and with an obturator of buccal extensions 15 mm (high), 10 mm (medium) and 5 mm (low), respectively. Assessments were performed at four week intervals for adaptation. The articulation performance of patients with different buccal extension designs were evaluated on speech intelligibility. The data tested using Friedman test.

Results: The mean SI score without an obturator was 45.04%±5.86%. SI was found to be significantly increased with obturators of any buccal extensions with the mean values 90.50, %94.24% and 91.20% for high, medium, and low buccal extensions respectively. When the SI score was compared between three buccal extension types medium was found to be significantly higher compared to others (P<.05).

Conclusions: Obturators improve speech intelligibility irrespective of their buccal extension levels. Nevertheless, medium size buccal extension enables the optimum sealing for better articulation. (Eur J Dent 2009;3:185-190)

Key words:

Obturator - Bulb height - Buccal extension - Speech intelligibility
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Bummer J III, Curtis TA, Marunick MT. Maxillofacial Rehabilitation. St. Louis, Ishiyaku Euro America, Inc; 1996:225�284.
  • 2 Patton DW, Ali A, Davies R, Fardy MJ. Oral rehabilitation and quality of life following the treatment of oral cancer. Dental Update 1994;21:231�234.
  • 3 Mahanna GK, Beukelman DR, Marshal JA, Gaebler CA, Sullivan M. Obturator prostheses after cancer surgery: An approach to speech outcome assessment. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:310-316.
  • 4 Emily AT, Jack L. Acoustic analyses of speech changes after maxillectomy and prosthodontic management. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:449-455.
  • 5 Brown KE. Peripheral consideration in improving obturator retention. J Prosthet Dent 1968;20:176�181.
  • 6 Desjardins RP. Obturator prosthesis design for maxillary defects. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39:424�435.
  • 7 Sharry JJ. The meatus obturator in cleft palate prosthesis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1954;7:852-855.
  • 8 Adisman IK. Prosthesis serviceability for acquired jaw defects. Dent Clin North Am 1990;34:265-284.
  • 9 Schwartzman B, Caputo A, Beumer J. Occlusal force transfer by removable partial denture designs for a radical maxillectomy. J Prosthet Dent 1985;54:397-403.
  • 10 Oh WS, Roumanas ED. Optimization of maxillary obturator thickness using a double-processing technique. J Prosthodont 2008;17:60-63.
  • 11 Itsuki Murase. In-Vivo modal analysis of maxillary dentition in a maxillectomy patient wearing buccal flange obturator prostheses with different bulb height designs. J Jpn Prosthodont Soc 2008;52:150-159.
  • 12 Arigbede AO, Dosumu OO, Shaba OP, Esan TA. Evaluation of speech in patients with partial surgically acquired defects: pre and post prosthetic obturation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006;15;89-96.
  • 13 de Carvalho-Teles V, Pegoraro-Krook MI, Lauris JRP. Speech evaluation with and without palatal obturator in patients submitted to maxillectomy. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14:421-426.
  • 14 Oki M, Iida T, Mukohyama H, Tomizuka K, Takato T, Taniguchi H. The vibratory characteristics of obturators with different bulb height and form designs. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:43-51.
  • 15 Aramany MA, Drane JB. Effect of nasal extension sections on the voice quality of acquired cleft palate patients. J Prosthet Dent 1972;27:194�202.
  • 16 Oral K, Aramany MA, McWilliams BJ. Speech intelligibility with the buccal flange obturator. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41:323�328.
  • 17 Umino S, Masuda G, Ono S, Fujita K. Speech intelligibility following maxillectomy with and without a prosthesis: an analysis of 54 cases. J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:153-158.
  • 18 Sullivan M, Gaebler C, Beukelman D, Mahanna G, Marshall J, Lydiatt D, Lydiatt WM. Impact of palatal prosthodontic intervention on communication performance of patients’ maxillectomy defects: a multilevel outcome study. Head Neck 2002;24:530-538.
  • 19 Brown KE. Clinical considerations improving obturator treatment. J Prosthet Dent 1970;24:461�466.
  • 20 Kobayashi M, Oki M, Ozawa S, Inoue T, Mukohyama H, Takato T, Ohyama T, Taniguchi H. Vibration analysis of obturator prostheses with different bulb height designs. J Med Dent Sci 2002;49:121-128.
  • 21 Hasanreisoḡlu U, Gürbüz A, Belgin E. Speech intelligibility in various types of obturators constructed after maxillary resections. Ankara Univ Dis Hekim Fak Derg 1989;16:77-86.
  • 22 Özbek M, Tulunoḡlu �, Özkan S, Öktemer M. Evaluation of articulation of Turkish phonemes after removable partial denture application. Braz Dent J 2003;14:125-131.