# The Logopedic Evaluation of Adult Patients after Orthognathic Surgery
## 3 Results
These pairs show statistically significant differences at the 95.0% confidence level: Open Bite + Protrusion vs. Open Bite + Crowding, Open Bite + Protrusion vs. Open Bite, Open Bite + Protrusion vs. Protrusion vs. Diastema, Open Bite + Protrusion vs. Crowding, Retrusion vs. Open Bite, Retrusion vs. Retrusion + Crowding, Retrusion vs. Diastema, Retrusion vs. Crowding, Open Bite + Diastema vs. Retrusion + Crowding, Open Bite + Diastema vs. Diastema, and Open Bite + Diastema vs. Crowding (\(p<0.05\)). Red brackets indicate statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)). community estimates have been set to assume that all of the variability in the data is due to common factors. The equations which estimate the common factors after rotation have been performed. Rotation has been performed in order to simplify the explanation of the factors. The explanations of such calculated factors are: Skeletal Consonants and Soft Tissue Consonants. The rotated factors have the Equations  
\[ \begin{split}\text{Skeletal Consonants}=-0.216\times\text{Bilabials}+0.686015 \times\text{Alveolar}+0.182536\times\\ \text{Labiodental}+0.646587\times\text{Palatal}+0.76647\times\text{ Palatal}_{\text{PL}}+0.78603\times\text{Dental}\\ \text{Soft Tissue Consonants}=0.760932\times\text{Bilabials}-0.111715 \times\text{Alveolar}+0.774208\times\\ \text{Labiodental}+0.0366595\times\text{Palatal}+0.144866\times\text{ Palatal}_{\text{PL}}-0.111252\times\text{Dental}\\ \end{split}  \tag{1}\]  
The values of the equations' variables have been standardized by subtracting their means and dividing by their standard deviations. This also shows the estimated communalities, which can be interpreted as estimating the proportion of the variability in each variable attributable to the extracted factors (Figure 3). Thus, the average value of the Skeletal Consonants factor calculated in presurgically evaluated patients was 10.55 \(\pm\) 2.14, and the Soft Tissue Consonant factor was 6.71 \(\pm\) 1.17. Skeletal and Soft Tissue Consonants are separate and not statistically related variables (CC = \(-\)0.06, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.38%, \(p\) = 0.5657). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between the means of Skeletal Consonants (\(p\) = 0.1827) and Soft Tissue Consonants (\(p\) = 0.7782) from one level of gender to another. The analysis of the variance provided information on the association of Skeletal and Soft Tissue Consonants with skeletal deformity (Figure 4). It appeared that the quality of pronunciation of Soft Tissue Consonants did not depend on the skeletal defect in the  
Figure 3: Components included in the two factors that achieved an eigenvalue higher than 1 (factor analysis). Factor 1 is called Skeletal Consonants (major components highlighted in yellow), and Factor 2 is called Soft Tissue Consonants (major components highlighted in blue). The data for 88 untreated patients. craniofacial region (\(p\) = 0.1507). In contrast, Class III maxillofacial deformity significantly worsened the pronunciation of Skeletal Consonants (\(p\) < 0.01). The worst results occurred in patients with mandibular prognathism (consecutively mandibular laterognathism). There was no association of dental malocclusion (variable: Additional Occlusal Data) with pronunciation quality for Skeletal Consonants (\(p\) = 0.4102) or Soft Tissue Consonants (\(p\) = 0.0533). Additionally, it was noted that in cases where a skeletal defect is detected, speech therapy conducted in childhood is not able to improve the articulation quality significantly, as these cases still presented the misarticulation of many phonemes. Furthermore, even patients treated in childhood were characterized by worse Skeletal Consonant pronunciation tests than adults (Figure 5, \(p\) < 0.05). This peculiar relationship was not observed in the Soft Tissue Consonants group (\(p\) = 0.8381).