Validity of the 'protocol of oro-facial myofunctional evaluation with scores' for young and adult subjects

• Published in: Journal of oral rehabilitation Vol. 39; no. 10; pp. 744 - 753
• Main Authors: DE FELÍCIO, C. M., MEDEIROS, A. P. M., DE OLIVEIRA MELCHIOR, M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.10.2012
• Subjects: Adult; Case-Control Studies; Cheek - physiopathology; deglutition; Deglutition - physiology; evaluation studies; Female; Humans; Lip - physiopathology; Male; Mandible - physiopathology; mastication; Mastication - physiology; Myofunctional Therapy; Reproducibility of Results; Respiration; Sensitivity and Specificity; Severity of Illness Index; speech therapy; temporomandibular joint disorders; Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction Syndrome - diagnosis; Temporomandibular Joint Dysfunction Syndrome - rehabilitation; Tongue - physiopathology; validation studies; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0305-182X; 1365-2842; 1365-2842
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2012.02336.x

Summary  The aims of this study were to analyse the validity, sensitivity and specificity of the protocol of oro‐facial myofunctional evaluation with scores (OMES) for oro‐facial myofunctional disorder (OMD) diagnosis in young and adult subjects. Eighty subjects were examined. The OMES was validated against the Nordic Orofacial Test‐Screening (NOT‐S) protocol (criterion validity) (Spearman correlation test). The construct validity was tested by analysis of the ability of the OMES (i) to differentiate healthy subjects (n = 22) from temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients (n = 22), which frequently have OMD (Mann–Whitney test) and (ii) to measure the changes that occurred in a subgroup with TMD between the period before and after oro‐facial myofunctional therapy (T group, n = 15) (Wilcoxon test). Two speech therapists trained with the OMES participated as examiners (E). There was a statistically significant correlation between the OMES and NOT‐S protocols, which was negative because the two scales are inverse (r = −0·86, P < 0·01). There was a significant difference between the healthy and TMD subjects regarding the oro‐facial myofunctional status (OMES total score, P = 0·003). After therapy, the T group showed improvement in the oro‐facial myofunctional status (OMES total score, P = 0·001). Inter‐ and intra‐examiner agreement was moderate, and the reliability coefficients ranged from good to excellent. The OMES protocol presented mean sensitivity and specificity = 0·80, positive predictive value = 0·76 and negative predictive value = 0·84. Conclusion: The OMES protocol is valid and reliable for clinical evaluation of young and adult subjects, among them patients with TMD.