Vázquez-Reyes A, Reyes ZA, Moyaho-Bernal Á, Moreno-García A, Montiel-Jarquín ÁJ, Hernández-Ruíz AK, Bejarano-Huertas R, López-Colombo A

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 538-542
PDF size: 179.39 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: The test for evaluating phonological simplification processes (TEPROSIF, according to its initials in Spanish) is a tool which is used to identify dyslalias. Our objective was to establish, by using TEPROSIF, the association between dyslalias and malocclusion in children from 4 to 6 years of age.
Methods: After we standardized the tool with a kappa of 0.9, we applied it to 116 children from 4 to 6 years of age. Patients were conducted to a central occlusion through deglutition. We observed type of bite, overbite, oclussion and terminal plane in order to relate them to the dyslalia presented. For statistical analysis, we used χ² test (p ‹ 0.05).
Results: They were 55 (47.4 %) boys and 61 (52.6 %) girls, with a median age of 5 years ± 0.71. Phoneme substitution was the most common alteration. We found significant correlation between omission of the phonemes and terminal plane (p = 0.01), Baume type I arch (p = 0.00) and absence of teeth (p = 0.00), as well as between phoneme substitution and terminal plane (p = 0.03), bite type (p = 0.01) and absence of teeth (p = 0.00).
Conclusions: Phoneme substitution is the most common alteration, followed by omission and distortion of phonemes in children between 4 and 6 years of age.

REFERENCES

1. Maggiolo ML, Coloma TC, Pavez GM. Chidren narrative intervention. Rev. CEFAC. 2009;11(3):379-88.

2. Schonhaut BL, Maggiolo LM, de Barbieri OZ, Rojas NP, Salgado VA. Difi cultades de lenguaje en preescolares: Concordancia entre el test TEPSI y la evaluación. Rev. Chil Pediatr. 2007;78(4):369-75.

3. Gassio-Subirachs R. Trastornos del lenguaje. An Pediatr Contin. 2006;4(2):140-4.

4. Rodríguez Peña N. Regal Cabrera N, Correa Mozo B, Suárez Martínez R. Anomalías de la oclusión y trastornos en la articulación de la palabra. Rev. Cubana Ortod. 2000;15(2):86-93.

5. Álvarez Baños L, Oropeza Murillo P, Pérez Tehada H. Trastornos del habla asociados a maloclusión dental en pacientes pediátricos. Rev Odont Mex. 2005;9 (1):23-29.

6. Fernández M, Fátima C. Aspectos diferenciales en el desarrollo de la comunicación y el lenguaje. Rev Doces. 2008;4:721-4.

7. Papalia D, Wendkos S, Duskin R. Psicología del desarrollo de la infancia a la adolescencia. Novena ed. México: McGraw-Hill; 2005. p. 69-79.

8. Pavez M. Test para evaluar procesos de simplifi - cación fonológica. TEPROSIF. Rev ONAMAZEIN. 2009;19:151-4.

9. Regal Cabrera N. Dislalias. Rev Cubana Ortod. 1999;14(2):89-93.

10. Goodstein DB, Cooper D, Wallace L. The effect on speech of surgery for correction of mandibular prognathism: A preliminary report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1974;37(6):846-9.

11. Fymbo LH. The relation of maloclusión of the teeth to defects of speech. Arch Speech. 1936;1:204-16.

12. Fymbo LH. The relation of maloclusión of the teeth to defects of speech. Part 1. Iowa State Dent J. 1956;42:288-94.

13. Nicola CL, Jonathan RS. Tooth position and speech—is there a relationship? Angle Orthodontist. 1999;69(4):306-10.

14. Tachimura T, Nohara K, Wada T. Effect of placement a speech appliance on levator veli palatini muscle activity during speech. Cleft Palat Craniofacial J. 2000; 57(5):478-82.

15. Massana-Molera M. Trastornos del lenguaje secundario a un défi cit instrumental: défi cit mecánico articulatorio. Rev Neurol. 2005;41(Supl):S39-S42.