Background/Aims: This pilot study aimed to evaluate the occurrence of oral habits and non-nutritive sucking habits in children with cleft (lip and) palate (CL/P) between 0–12 years, compared to peers without CL/P. Methods: Children with CL/P (mean age 6.0 years, SD 2.80) were recruited from the Ghent University Hospital and compared to gender- and age-matched children without CL/P (mean age 5.8 years, SD 3.09). A self-report questionnaire was developed and given to the caregivers. To compare the occurrence of oral habits and non-nutritive sucking habits in children with and without CL/P, χ² tests or Fisher’s exact tests were used. Results: The present study revealed a significantly lower occurrence of non-nutritive sucking habits in children with CL/P. These children showed significantly less pacifier sucking; no significant difference was found regarding thumb or finger sucking nor regarding sucking on other objects. Additionally, the results showed that the occurrence of snoring was statistically significantly higher in children with CL/P. Conclusion: Children with CL/P show less non-nutritive sucking habits, but more snoring compared to a control group without CL/P. Although further research regarding the oral habits in children with CL/P is necessary, cleft teams should give attention to the occurrence of oral habits.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of two different speech therapy approaches, a traditional motor-phonetic approach and a linguistic-phonological approach, on the speech and health-related quality of life in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP ± L) between 4 and 12 years old. Method A block-randomized, sham-controlled design was used. Fourteen children with a CP ± L ( M age = 7.71 years) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age and gender: one receiving motor-phonetic intervention ( n = 7) and one receiving linguistic-phonological intervention ( n = 7). Each group received 10 hr of speech therapy divided over 2 weeks. Perceptual speech assessments were performed on several baseline and posttreatment data points. The psychosocial effects of the intervention were assessed using the patient-reported Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcomes questionnaire. Both groups were compared over time using (generalized) linear mixed models. Within-group effects of time were determined using pairwise comparisons with post hoc Bonferroni correction. Results Significant Time × Group interactions with large effect sizes were revealed in terms of consonant proficiency, indicating significant differences in evolution over time among the two groups. Only in the group receiving linguistic-phonological intervention, percentage of correctly produced consonants and places significantly improved after the treatment. Total Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcomes scores of the parents significantly improved in both groups after the intervention. Conclusions Both motor-phonetic and linguistic-phonological speech interventions can have a positive impact on the occurrence of cleft speech characteristics and consonant proficiency in children with a CP ± L. A linguistic-phonological approach, however, was observed to be more effective in terms of improving these speech outcomes compared with a motor-phonetic approach. Speech intervention, irrespective of the used approach, significantly improved the participant's health-related quality of life.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of speech intervention provided with a low intensity with speech intervention provided with a high intensity on the speech and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Dutch-speaking children with a cleft palate with or without a cleft lip (CP ± L) between 4 and 12 years. Method A longitudinal, prospective, randomized controlled trial with a multiple baseline design was used. Twelve children with a CP ± L ( M age = 8.0 years, SD = 1.54) were divided into two groups using block randomization stratified by age and gender: One group received low-intensity speech intervention (LISI; n = 6) and one group received high-intensity speech intervention (HISI; n = 6). Children in the LISI group received intervention with a session duration of 1 hr, a dose frequency of 1 session per week, and a total intervention duration of 10 weeks. Children in the HISI group received intervention with a session duration of 1 hr, a dose frequency of 5 sessions per week, and a total intervention duration of 2 weeks. The cumulative intervention intensity was kept constant. Both groups received identical therapy programs provided by the same experienced speech therapist. Perceptual speech assessments were performed on baseline and posttreatment data points. Changes in HRQoL were assessed using the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Effects on Life Outcomes (VELO) questionnaire. Both groups were compared over time using (generalized) linear mixed models. Results No significant Time × Group interactions were observed for the percentage of correctly produced consonants at the word and sentence levels, indicating no differences in evolution over time among the two groups. The variables speech understandability, speech acceptability, and the total VELO scores significantly improved following HISI, but not following LISI. Conclusions Children in the HISI group made equal and, for some variables, even superior progress in only 2 weeks of therapy compared to children in the LISI group who received 10 weeks of therapy. HISI is a promising strategy to improve speech outcomes and HRQoL in a shorter time period.