Detailed speech evaluation including formant 3 analysis and voice visualization in maxillofacial rehabilitation: A clinical report.

Objective speech evaluation such as analysis of formants 1 and 2 and nasality measurement have been used in maxillofacial rehabilitation for outcome assessment. However, in some patients, those evaluations are insufficient to assess a specific or unique problem. This report describes the use of a new speech evaluation including formant 3 analysis and voice visualization in a patient with a maxillofacial defect. The patient was a 67-year-old man who had a maxillary defect that opened to the maxillary sinus and who had an unnatural voice even when wearing an obturator. Nasality was low and the frequency of formants 1 and 2 were normal even without the obturator. However, a low frequency of formant 3 and a shifted center of voice were observed. These results indicated that the unnatural voice was related to increased resonant volume in the pharynx rather than hypernasality. This patient demonstrates that advanced speech analysis can be useful for detecting the cause of speech disorder and planning maxillofacial rehabilitation.

[Influence and Countermeasure of Respiratory Motion on Matchline Profile of Field Matching Technique in Passive Scattering Proton Therapy for Esophageal Cancer].

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of change in respiratory motion on matchline (ML) and reduction of the effect by increasing ML levels of field matching technique in passive scattering proton therapy for esophageal cancer. To evaluate the influence of respiratory motion in terms of stability, we measured relative dose around ML using a respiratory motion phantom. The relative error was -0.5% when the respiratory motion phantom worked stable, whereas there was obvious change that the relative error was -25.5% when the difference of amplitude between upper field and lower field was one side 3 mm on each cranially and caudally direction. In clinical case of the seven esophageal cancer patients simulated by the treatment planning system, assuming the difference of amplitude was 3 mm, the relative error of maximum (minimum) dose in clinical target volume around ML against the original treatment plan were 5.8±1.2% (-6.0±2.7%), 3.3±0.9% (-3.8±1.0%), and 2.4±0.5% (2.6±0.8%) on average (±SD) when ML levels were 2, 4, and 6, respectively. Increasing ML levels can reduce the influence of respiratory motion.