# The Logopedic Evaluation of Adult Patients after Orthognathic Surgery
## 3 Results
As far as the labiodental consonants were evaluated, postoperational results were significantly better (\(p<0.001\)) than both preoperational and reference groups (patients in the preoperational group pronounced these consonants significantly worse than in the case of the reference group). See Table 6. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Consonants**} & **Reference** & **Pre-Operational** & **Post-Operational** & **Statistical** \\  & **Average \(\pm\) SD** & **Pre-OP** & **Post-OP** & **Significance** \\  & **Average \(\pm\) SD** & **Average \(\pm\) SD** & **Pre-OP vs. Post-OP** \\ \hline Bilabial & 4.59 \(\pm\) 0.80 & 4.43 \(\pm\) 0.83 & 4.95 \(\pm\) 0.33 & \(p<0.01\) \\ Alveolar & 3.55 \(\pm\) 0.85 & 4.36 \(\pm\) 0.85 & 4.68 \(\pm\) 0.54 & n.s. \\ Labiodental & 4.38 \(\pm\) 1.00 & 4.08 \(\pm\) 1.14 & 4.89 \(\pm\) 0.31 & \(p<0.001\) \\ Palatal & 3.89 \(\pm\) 0.94 & 4.12 \(\pm\) 0.90 & 4.69 \(\pm\) 0.48 & \(p<0.001\) \\ Palatal\_PL * & 3.66 \(\pm\) 1.03 & 4.22 \(\pm\) 0.97 & 4.82 \(\pm\) 0.50 & \(p<0.001\) \\ Dental & 2.72 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 3.49 \(\pm\) 1.23 & 4.55 \(\pm\) 0.69 & \(p<0.001\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: n.s.—no significant difference; * group of specific regional palatal consonants which the International Phonetic Alphabet does not represent.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Articulation before and after surgery divided into consonant groups according to the International Phonetic Alphabet revised to 2015. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Tongue Function Test**} & **Reference** & **Preoperational** & **Postoperational** & **Statistical** \\  & **Average \(\pm\) SD** & **Pre-OP** & **Post-OP** & **Significance** \\  & **Average \(\pm\) SD** & **Average \(\pm\) SD** & **Pre-OP vs. Post-OP** \\ \hline Tongue Down & 2.46 \(\pm\) 0.65 & 2.70 \(\pm\) 0.52 & 2.73 \(\pm\) 0.45 & n.s. \\ Tongue Up & 1.70 \(\pm\) 1.13 & 2.24 \(\pm\) 0.95 * & 2.35 \(\pm\) 0.82 * & n.s. \\ Tongue Lips Corner & 2.73 \(\pm\) 0.51 & 2.86 \(\pm\) 0.42 & 2.89 \(\pm\) 0.39 & n.s. \\ Wide Tongue In-Out & 2.41 \(\pm\) 0.76 & 2.51 \(\pm\) 0.61 & 2.73 \(\pm\) 0.45 & n.s. \\ Spoon Tongue & 2.19 \(\pm\) 0.94 & 1.95 \(\pm\) 0.97 & 2.24 \(\pm\) 0.72 & n.s. \\ Arched Tongue & 1.81 \(\pm\) 1.05 & 1.43 \(\pm\) 1.09 & 2.05 \(\pm\) 0.81 & \(p<0.05\) \\ Tongue Back & 2.27 \(\pm\) 0.65 & 2.76 \(\pm\) 0.49 * & 2.73 \(\pm\) 0.56 * & n.s. \\ Lips Lick & 2.43 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 2.76 \(\pm\) 0.43 * & 2.73 \(\pm\) 0.45 * & n.s. \\ Tongue Sound & 2.14 \(\pm\) 1.03 & 2.43 \(\pm\) 0.80 & 2.51 \(\pm\) 0.80 & n.s. \\ Vertically Horizontal & & & & \\ Position & 1.32 \(\pm\) 1.13 & 1.59 \(\pm\) 1.01 & 1.95 \(\pm\) 0.91 * & n.s. \\ (Rest Position) & & & & \\ Total Tongue Efficiency & 21.46 \(\pm\) 4.90 & 23.27 \(\pm\) 3.30 * & 24.73 \(\pm\) 3.20 * & n.s. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: n.s.—no significant difference; * group of specific regional palatal consonants which the International Phonetic Alphabet does not represent.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Lingual function in operated dysgnathic patients. It has been noted that the pronunciation of bilabial, libiodental, palatal, palatal_pl, and dental consonants improved after treatment. We examined which of the study variables were associated with this improvement. The quality of the obtained pronunciation of bilabial consonants did not depend on the postoperational Total Visual Assessment (CC = 0.16, R\({}^{2}\) = 2.6%, \(p\) = 0.35), Total Tongue Efficiency (CC = 0.07, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.5%, \(p\) = 0.67), or Total Lips Efficiency (CC = 0.32, R\({}^{2}\) = 10%, \(p\) = 0.055). Postoperational libiodental consonant quality did not depend on the Total Visual Assessment (CC = 0.07, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.6%, \(p\) = 0.66), Total Tongue Efficiency (CC = 0.07, R\({}^{2}\) = 0.5%, \(p\) = 0.69), or Total Lips Efficiency (CC = \(-\)0.13, R\({}^{2}\) = 1.8%, \(p\) = 0.43).