Analysis of modified palatal surface for better speech in edentulous patients: A clinico-analytical study

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Shukla, Anuj K.^a | Chaturvedi, Saurabh^{b; *} | Ahmed, Abdul Razzaq^b | Abouzeid, Hoda Lofty^b | Suleman, Ghazala^b | Sharif, Rania A.^b | Gurumurthy, Vishwanath^c | Cicciù, Marco^d | Minervini, Giuseppe^{e; f}

Affiliations: [a] Department of Dentistry, Government Medical College, and Hospital Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh, India | [b] Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia | [c] Department of Dental Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia | [d] Department of Biomedical and Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, Catania University, Catania, Italy | [e] Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Odontostomatological Specialties, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Naples, Italy | [f] Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, India

Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Saurabh Chaturvedi, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Phonetics with mechanics and aesthetics are considered cardinal factors contributing to the success of complete dentures. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the changes in speech in complete denture patients with and without palatal surface changes. METHODS: The data collected for the study involved completely edentulous Patients (n= 80). Patients were divided into two groups. Group A: Up to 50 years (n= 40); Group B: Above 50 years (n= 40) (including male and female). Each group was further divided into four subgroups for speech analysis-without dentures (A1/B1); with conventional dentures (A2/B2); dentures with a palatogram (A3/B3) and dentures with palate sandblasted (A4/B4). The speech sounds of all patients were evaluated for pitch and intensity using a spectrophotogram (Praat software) and Likert scale. The data so obtained from the quantitative and qualitative analysis were statistically analysed through one-way ANOVA, unpaired student’s t-test, and Pearson correlation coefficient. Qualitative analysis was done with the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: The maximum mean value of the pitch and intensity in Groups A and B was subgroup A3 (Palatogram) 190.37 ± 21.50 and 77.07 ± 7.58, B3 (Palatogram) 190.87 ± 24.36 and 75.33 ± 8.12. When comparing Groups A [A1, A2, A3, A4] and B [B1, B2, B3, B4] on the basis of pitch and intensity, a statistically insignificant value was found. No changes in speech sounds (pitch and intensity) were observed in terms of age. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis results showed that speech sounds in the patients with palatogram, had the highest pitch and intensity and were most clear to the listener and there were statistically significant differences from other groups. CONCLUSION: Speech was better in palatogram-based dentures in comparison to a sandblasted denture, conventional denture and without denture in terms of qualitative and quantitative analysis. The physiologic nature of the palatogram fabrication technique produces the palatal part of the denture more compatible with the tongue, thus producing better speech.

Keywords: Palatal surface, speech, edentulous, prosthodontics, dentistry

DOI: 10.3233/THC-230477

Journal: Technology and Health Care, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 1055-1065, 2024