Scholarlink

Background <p>Speech outcome differences in children with cleft palate ± cleft lip (CP ± L) with ( +) and without (-) additional conditions (i.e., diagnosed syndromes, additional malformations, and intellectual disabilities) are not fully explored. The Swedish cleft lip and palate (CLP) registry enables a longitudinal approach. Thus, the purpose was to compare longitudinal speech outcomes in children with different cleft types, with and without additional conditions, at ages 5 and 10&#xa0;years, based on registry data.</p> Methods <p>Included were all children with oral clefts involving the palate born in Sweden 2009–2012, with speech registrations at both 5 and 10&#xa0;years in the Swedish CLP registry (<i>n</i> = 404): 16 cleft soft palate (SP) + , 37 SP-, 67 cleft soft and hard palate (SHP) + , 88 SHP-, 19 unilateral cleft lip palate (UCLP) + , 116 UCLP-, 15 bilateral cleft lip palate (BCLP) + and 46 BCLP-. The speech outcomes percentage of consonants correct, percentage of nonoral speech errors, velopharyngeal competence, and results of the Intelligibility in Context Scale were dichotomized. For group comparisons, Pearson’s chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were performed.</p> Results <p>No significant differences were found between the UCLP + /UCLP- and BCLP + /BCLP- groups. In the SP group, a significantly lower proportion of participants with additional conditions than without had age-appropriate consonant production at age 5 (SP + 33.3%; SP- 79.4%), sufficient velopharyngeal function at age 10 (SP + 73.3%; SP- 97.3%), and always intelligible speech at age 10 (SP + 33.3%; SP- 78.6%). In the SHP group, a significantly lower proportion of participants with additional conditions than without had age-appropriate consonant production at age 5 (SHP + 60.6%; SHP- 82.1%) and 10 (SHP + 73.8%; SHP-95.5%), sufficient velopharyngeal function at age 5 (SHP + 82.1%; SHP- 95.5%), and always intelligible speech at age 10&#xa0;years (SHP + 51.7%; SHP- 83.8%).</p> Conclusions <p>For all cleft types with and without additional conditions and for all measured speech outcomes, speech improved between 5 and 10&#xa0;years of age. Speech results were poorer for children with SP + and SHP + at both 5 and 10&#xa0;years of age. The results highlight the need to consider heterogeneity within cleft subgroups when planning speech improving interventions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparisons of longitudinal speech outcomes in children born with cleft palate ± cleft lip with and without additional conditions at 5 and 10 years –a registry study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月11日

查看全文
  • Ann Malmenholt,
  • Christina Persson,
  • Kristina Klintö

摘要

Background

Speech outcome differences in children with cleft palate ± cleft lip (CP ± L) with ( +) and without (-) additional conditions (i.e., diagnosed syndromes, additional malformations, and intellectual disabilities) are not fully explored. The Swedish cleft lip and palate (CLP) registry enables a longitudinal approach. Thus, the purpose was to compare longitudinal speech outcomes in children with different cleft types, with and without additional conditions, at ages 5 and 10 years, based on registry data.

Methods

Included were all children with oral clefts involving the palate born in Sweden 2009–2012, with speech registrations at both 5 and 10 years in the Swedish CLP registry (n = 404): 16 cleft soft palate (SP) + , 37 SP-, 67 cleft soft and hard palate (SHP) + , 88 SHP-, 19 unilateral cleft lip palate (UCLP) + , 116 UCLP-, 15 bilateral cleft lip palate (BCLP) + and 46 BCLP-. The speech outcomes percentage of consonants correct, percentage of nonoral speech errors, velopharyngeal competence, and results of the Intelligibility in Context Scale were dichotomized. For group comparisons, Pearson’s chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were performed.

Results

No significant differences were found between the UCLP + /UCLP- and BCLP + /BCLP- groups. In the SP group, a significantly lower proportion of participants with additional conditions than without had age-appropriate consonant production at age 5 (SP + 33.3%; SP- 79.4%), sufficient velopharyngeal function at age 10 (SP + 73.3%; SP- 97.3%), and always intelligible speech at age 10 (SP + 33.3%; SP- 78.6%). In the SHP group, a significantly lower proportion of participants with additional conditions than without had age-appropriate consonant production at age 5 (SHP + 60.6%; SHP- 82.1%) and 10 (SHP + 73.8%; SHP-95.5%), sufficient velopharyngeal function at age 5 (SHP + 82.1%; SHP- 95.5%), and always intelligible speech at age 10 years (SHP + 51.7%; SHP- 83.8%).

Conclusions

For all cleft types with and without additional conditions and for all measured speech outcomes, speech improved between 5 and 10 years of age. Speech results were poorer for children with SP + and SHP + at both 5 and 10 years of age. The results highlight the need to consider heterogeneity within cleft subgroups when planning speech improving interventions.