Evaluation of oral-motor movements and facial mimic in patients with head and neck burns by a public service in Brazil

4Citations
Citations of this article
58Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics of oral-motor movements and facial mimic in patients with head and neck burns. METHODS: An observational descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with patients who suffered burns to the head and neck and who were referred to the Division of Orofacial Myology of a public hospital for assessment and rehabilitation. Only patients presenting deep partial-thickness and full-thickness burns to areas of the face and neck were included in the study. Patients underwent clinical assessment that involved an oral-motor evaluation, mandibular range of movement assessment, and facial mimic assessment. Patients were divided into two groups: G1 – patients with deep partial-thickness burns; G2 – patients with full-thickness burns. RESULTS: Our final study sample comprised 40 patients: G1 with 19 individuals and G2 with 21 individuals. The overall scores obtained in the clinical assessment of oral-motor organs indicated that patients with both secondand third-degree burns presented deficits related to posture, position and mobility of the oral-motor organs. Considering facial mimic, groups significantly differed when performing voluntary facial movements. Patients also presented limited maximal incisor opening. Deficits were greater for individuals in G2 in all assessments. CONCLUSION: Patients with head and neck burns present significant deficits related to posture, position and mobility of the oral myofunctional structures, including facial movements.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Magnani, D. M., Sassi, F. C., Vana, L. P. M., Alonso, N., & de Andrade, C. R. F. (2015). Evaluation of oral-motor movements and facial mimic in patients with head and neck burns by a public service in Brazil. Clinics, 70(5), 339–345. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2015(05)06

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free