Comparison of Participation in Online Games and Communication Experiences of School-Age Children Who Do and Do not Stutter: Exploratory Study.

INTRODUCTION: Online games provide a socializing environment for children aged 8-10 years, but there is a lack of information in the literature about whether children who stutter access online gaming environments as frequently as their non-affected peers and about their interaction habits. This study aimed to investigate the participation frequency of school-age children who do and do not stutter in online games, the speech characteristics during games, and whether they encountered bullying-like behaviors during games. METHODS: A total of 91 children who stutter (F/M = 18/73; age range = 8-13) and 116 children who do not stutter (F/M = 60/56; age range 8-13) participated in this study. Children's participation habits in online, chat-based, multiplayer, games were evaluated with web-based questionnaires. Differences between questionnaire responses were analyzed using the significance test for a difference in two proportions. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the participation rates of children who do and do not stutter in online games (z = 1.46; p = 0.14), their frequency (p > 0.05) and the time they spent in the game (p > 0.05). It was found that those who stutter preferred to use one-word expressions more than their peers who do not stutter (z = 2.03; p = 0.04), and those who stutter had higher rates of not encountering bullying-like behaviors in online games than those who do not stutter (z = 2.2; p = 0.03). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Children who do and do not stutter show similar participation habits in online, chat-based, multiplayer games with similar frequency, and duration. Speech features that emerge in online games, and whether these games play a role in providing children who stutter a communication environment where the risk of bullying is reduced and fluency is increased may be the subject of future research.

Perceptions Regarding the Academic and Cognitive Performance of Individuals With Cleft Lip and/or Palate.

INTRODUCTION: Factors such as teachers' appropriate support and social interactions have an impact on the academic performance of children with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P). This study was designed to investigate the perceptions of the teachers and the general public about the academic and cognitive performance of individuals with CL/P. METHODS: This study was included 360 (male/female = 102/258) teachers and 640 (male/female = 259/381) participants that represent the general public. Anonymized web-based and paper-and-pencil self-administered questionnaire that included multiple-choice and yes/no questions were administered. Within-group differences and intergroup differences were analyzed in terms of academic and cognitive performance. RESULTS: Most of the teachers and the general public indicated that the academic and cognitive performance of individuals with CL/P is the same as their unaffected peers. A significantly higher proportion of the teachers indicated that the academic performance of children with CL/P is the same as their unaffected peers than the general public. CONCLUSION: Considering that the general public's attitudes and appropriate teacher support are crucial to prevent adverse impacts on the lives of individuals with CL/P, it is important to support teachers with the appropriate information and to encourage the public to recognize that everybody with a facial difference should be treated as an individual rather than a disability.

Comparison of speech outcomes using type 2b intravelar veloplasty or furlow double-opposing Z plasty for soft palate repair of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare speech outcomes, fistula rates, and rates of secondary speech surgeries after palatoplasty using Furlow palatoplasty or type 2b intravelar veloplasty for soft palate repair. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate who had either Furlow palatoplasty or intravelar veloplasty for soft palate repair were retrospectively evaluated for demographic and perioperative variables and speech outcomes. Fistula rate, secondary surgical intervention for improved speech results, and findings of speech assessment were further reviewed for the patients who met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients, 36 in the Furlow palatoplasty group and 40 in the intravelar veloplasty group, were included in the study. In the speech assessment, nasalance values were statistically similar between the two groups. Also, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in velopharyngeal motility (p = 0.103). The total rates of secondary surgeries and fistula were statistically similar between the groups (p = 0.347 and 0.105, respectively). CONCLUSION: The similar outcomes of speech and surgical evaluation between the two groups make the surgeon's preference determinant in the selection of the surgical technique for soft palate repair.

Does early cleft palate repair make difference? Comparative evaluation of the speech outcomes using objective parameters.

The present study aims to evaluate the effect of timing of cleft palate repair on speech results by using objective assessment tools, under standardized variables. The patients included in the study were divided into three groups according to their age of palatal repair. Velopharyngeal closure was evaluated anatomically by nasopharyngoscopy, and the nasalance values were recorded and evaluated objectively by nasometer. Also, the rate of secondary surgical intervention and fistula rate was analyzed for each group. Nasalance values and nasopharyngoscopic evaluation results were statistically similar between group 1 and group 2. However, there was a statistically significant difference between these groups compared with group 3 in the nasalance value of all speech samples and terms of the velopharyngeal complete closure (p = 0.022). The rate of fistula and secondary surgical intervention was statistically similar between the groups (p = 0.080). In secondary surgical intervention rates, the difference between group 1 and group 3 was statistically significant (p = 0.016). The present study confirms the importance of the 18th month as a cut-of time in palatal repair for improved speech results by using objective assessment tools.