Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics · 2005
Nasal airflow and olfactory function after the repair of cleft palate (with and without cleft lip).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Grossmann Noam, Brin Ilana, Aizenbud Dror, Sichel Jean-Yves, Gross-Isseroff Ruth, Steiner Jacob
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine nasal airflow and olfactory functions in patients with repaired cleft palate compared with matching normal controls.
STUDY DESIGN: The all-cleft group consisted of 25 patients with hard palate cleft comprising 15 patients with unilateral cleft palate and lip (UCLP); 2 with CP but no cleft lip (UCLP subgroup) and 8 patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP subgroup). All had had surgical correction of the palate in infancy. The control group consisted of 20 nonaffected orthodontic patients. The median age of both groups was 14 years. The tests included the following: (1) nasal airflow measured by anterior rhinomanometry, (2) smell threshold for isoamyl-acetate determined using a 3-way forced choice method, (3) a self-administered questionnaire regarding the subjective perception of smell sense function, and (4) orthonasal and retronasal smell identification (correct/incorrect) and hedonics using visual analog scale (VAS).
RESULTS: The respective test results follow. (1) When compared with the control group, the total airflow in the UCLP subgroup was significantly lower especially on the affected side; while in the BCLP subgroup it was lower than in the control group bilaterally. No significant difference was found between the cleft side of UCLP and BCLP subgroups. (2) The smell threshold of the UCLP subgroup was significantly higher than that of the control group and BCLP subgroup. No significant differences were found between right and left nostrils within the BCLP patients and between them and the control group. (3) No difference was found between the groups regarding the subjective perception of smell. (4) No significant differences were found between the UCLP and BCLP subgroups and between the all-cleft group and the control group, except for one item, regarding orthonasal and retronasal smell identification and hedonics.
CONCLUSION: Although nasal airflow is significantly lower and the smell threshold higher on the cleft side, the day-to-day function of the sense of smell of cleft patients is similar to that of normal controls.
STUDY DESIGN: The all-cleft group consisted of 25 patients with hard palate cleft comprising 15 patients with unilateral cleft palate and lip (UCLP); 2 with CP but no cleft lip (UCLP subgroup) and 8 patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP subgroup). All had had surgical correction of the palate in infancy. The control group consisted of 20 nonaffected orthodontic patients. The median age of both groups was 14 years. The tests included the following: (1) nasal airflow measured by anterior rhinomanometry, (2) smell threshold for isoamyl-acetate determined using a 3-way forced choice method, (3) a self-administered questionnaire regarding the subjective perception of smell sense function, and (4) orthonasal and retronasal smell identification (correct/incorrect) and hedonics using visual analog scale (VAS).
RESULTS: The respective test results follow. (1) When compared with the control group, the total airflow in the UCLP subgroup was significantly lower especially on the affected side; while in the BCLP subgroup it was lower than in the control group bilaterally. No significant difference was found between the cleft side of UCLP and BCLP subgroups. (2) The smell threshold of the UCLP subgroup was significantly higher than that of the control group and BCLP subgroup. No significant differences were found between right and left nostrils within the BCLP patients and between them and the control group. (3) No difference was found between the groups regarding the subjective perception of smell. (4) No significant differences were found between the UCLP and BCLP subgroups and between the all-cleft group and the control group, except for one item, regarding orthonasal and retronasal smell identification and hedonics.
CONCLUSION: Although nasal airflow is significantly lower and the smell threshold higher on the cleft side, the day-to-day function of the sense of smell of cleft patients is similar to that of normal controls.