Surgical reconstruction versus prosthetic obturation of extensive soft palate defects: a comparison of speech outcomes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The restoration of speech after an extensive resection of the soft palate has been a challenge faced by both prosthodontists and surgeons. Few comparisons between prosthetic rehabilitations and surgical reconstructions of large soft palate defects exist in equally matched groups of patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate speech outcomes in patients with soft palate defects that were rehabilitated with either a pharyngeal obturator or surgical reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine patients who were treated via prosthetic obturation were compared to nine patients who underwent surgical reconstruction of the oropharynx with a radial forearm free flap and a soft palate insufficiency repair modification. Speech intelligibility data, perceptual ratings of resonance, and aeromechanical measurements of velopharyngeal function were collected. RESULTS: There were no differences in any of the speech outcome measures between the two groups of patients. CONCLUSION: Future studies should focus on the patient's perspective on rehabilitative options and potential quality of life issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".