The Impact of Fan-Type Rapid Palatal Expanders on Speech in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rapid palatal expanders (RPEs) are commonly used in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) prior to secondary alveolar bone grafting (SABG). Their position and size can impede tongue movement and affect speech. This study assessed changes in perception and production of speech over the course of RPE treatment. Prospective longitudinal. Tertiary university-affiliated hospital. Twenty-five patients with unilateral CLP treated with Fan-type RPEs, and their parents. Patient and parent speech questionnaires and patient speech recordings were collected at baseline before RPE insertion (T1), directly after RPE insertion (T2), during RPE expansion (T3), during RPE retention (T4), directly after RPE removal but before SABG (T5), and at short-term follow-up after RPE removal and SABG (T6). Ratings for patient and parent questionnaires, first (F1) and second (F2) formants for vowels /a/, /i/, and /u/, and nasalance scores for non-nasal and nasal sentences, were obtained and analyzed using mixed model analyses of variance. Ratings worsened at T2. For the vowel /a/, F1 and F2 were unchanged at T2. For the vowel /i/, F1 increased and F2 decreased at T2. For the vowel /u/, F1 was unchanged and F2 decreased at T2. Nasalance was unchanged at T2. All outcome measures returned to T1 levels by T4. RPE insertion resulted in initial adverse effects on speech perception and production, which decreased to baseline prior to removal. Information regarding transient speech dysfunction and distress may help prepare patients for treatment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".