Auris, nasus, larynx · 2011
Laryngeal dysfunction and oral hygiene: Any relation?
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Eryaman Esra, Ilhan Banu Oter
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to establish a relation between poor oral hygiene and laryngeal dysfunction.
METHODS: 43 adult patients were divided into two groups according to caries activity and oral hygiene. 18 patients with oral hygiene index score (OHI-S) 0-1 were grouped as the control group (good oral hygiene). 25 patients with OHI-S 2-3 were grouped as the study group (poor oral hygiene). Larygostroboscopic examination, aerodynamic measures by defining maximum phonation time (MPT) and s/z ratio and the pitch level measurements were done. Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), previously confirmed laryngeal diseases or pathologies, systemic other diseases, or smokers were excluded from this study.
RESULTS: The average MPT values of the study group were found to be statistically very significantly lower than those of the control group (p<0.01). In the stroboscopic findings, the proportion of normal closure levels were meaningfully higher in the control group than in the study group (p<0.05). The supraglottic involvement was found statistically meaningfully higher in the study group than in the control group (p<0.05). The proportion of normal closure phase incidences were meaningfully higher in the control group than in the study group (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: So, our findings of high glottic closure impairment, supraglottic involvement and low MPT scores in the poor oral hygiene group correlate with LPR findings such as muscle tension dysphonia. Poor oral hygiene may aggravate potential LPR in people.
METHODS: 43 adult patients were divided into two groups according to caries activity and oral hygiene. 18 patients with oral hygiene index score (OHI-S) 0-1 were grouped as the control group (good oral hygiene). 25 patients with OHI-S 2-3 were grouped as the study group (poor oral hygiene). Larygostroboscopic examination, aerodynamic measures by defining maximum phonation time (MPT) and s/z ratio and the pitch level measurements were done. Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), previously confirmed laryngeal diseases or pathologies, systemic other diseases, or smokers were excluded from this study.
RESULTS: The average MPT values of the study group were found to be statistically very significantly lower than those of the control group (p<0.01). In the stroboscopic findings, the proportion of normal closure levels were meaningfully higher in the control group than in the study group (p<0.05). The supraglottic involvement was found statistically meaningfully higher in the study group than in the control group (p<0.05). The proportion of normal closure phase incidences were meaningfully higher in the control group than in the study group (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: So, our findings of high glottic closure impairment, supraglottic involvement and low MPT scores in the poor oral hygiene group correlate with LPR findings such as muscle tension dysphonia. Poor oral hygiene may aggravate potential LPR in people.