Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T07:01:05.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Relationship between nasal cavity volume changes and nasalance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2008

H Birkent*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey
U Erol
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey
M Ciyiltepe
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey
T L Eadie
Affiliation:
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
A Durmaz
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey
F Tosun
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Hakan Birkent, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 356515, Seattle, Washington 98195-6515, USA. Fax: +1 206 5435152 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objectives:

The patency and volume of the nasal cavity affect the acoustic characteristics of the voice. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a nasal decongestant on nasal volumes and nasalance scores, and to determine the relationship between these measures.

Methods:

Acoustic rhinometry and nasometry were performed in a group of 21 adult volunteers both prior to and following application of a nasal decongestant. The relationship between changes in nasalance scores and acoustic rhinometric parameters was investigated.

Results:

After the application of nasal decongestant, statistically significant increases were observed in nasalance scores and in all of the acoustic rhinometric parameters assessed (i.e. minimal cross-sectional area, three cross-sectional areas, three volumes and total volume). However, no significant correlation was found between the changes in nasalance scores and acoustic rhinometric parameters.

Conclusions:

Nasal decongestion causes an increase in nasalance scores and nasal cavity volumes. However, the findings of this study indicate that changes in nasalance scores may result from factors other than nasal cavity volume changes.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lee, GS, Yang, CC, Wang, CP, Kuo, TB. Effect of nasal decongestion on voice spectrum of a nasal consonant-vowel. J Voice 2005;19:71–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Kent, RD. Hearing and believing: some limits to the auditory-perceptual assessment of speech and voice. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1996;5:723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Dalston, RM, Warren, DW, Dalston, ET. Use of nasometry as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1991;28:184–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Pegoraro-Krook, MI, Dutka-Souza, JC, Williams, WN, Teles Magalhães, LC, Rossetto, PC, Riski, JE. Effect of nasal decongestion on nasalance measures. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2006;43:289–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5 Williams, RG, Eccles, R, Hutchings, H. The relationship between nasalance and nasal resistance to airflow. Acta Otolaryngol 1990;110:443–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Hong, KH, Kwon, SH, Jung, SS. The assessment of nasality with a nasometer and sound spectrography in patients with nasal polyposis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117:343–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7 Soneghet, R, Santos, RP, Behlau, M, Habermann, W, Friedrich, G, Stammberger, H. Nasalance changes after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. J Voice 2002;16:392–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Jiang, RS, Huang, HT. Changes in nasal resonance after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Am J Rhinol 2006;20:432–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9 Kay Elemetrics. Nasometer II Model 6400 Installation, Operations, and Maintenance Manual. Lincoln Park, New Jersey: Kay Elemetrics, 2003Google Scholar
10 Proctor, DF. Breathing, Speech and Song. Vienna: Springer-Verlag, 1980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Wetmore, RF. Importance of maintaining normal nasal function in the cleft palate patient. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992;29:498506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Mayo, R, Floyd, LA, Warren, DW, Dalston, RM, Mayo, CM. Nasalance and nasal area values: cross-racial study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1996;33:143–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13 Litzaw, LL, Dalston, RM. The effect of gender upon nasalance scores among normal adult speakers. J Commun Disord 1992;25:5564CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Keck, T, Wiesmiller, K, Lindemann, J, Rozsasi, A. Acoustic rhinometry in nasal provocation test in perennial allergic rhinitis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:910–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 Cakmak, O, Celik, H, Ergin, T, Sennaroglu, L. Accuracy of acoustic rhinometry measurements. Laryngoscope 2001;111:587–94CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16 Watterson, T, Lewis, KE. Test-retest nasalance score variability in hypernasal speakers. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2006;43:415–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17 Bressmann, T. Comparison of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer, the NasalView, and the OroNasal System. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005;42:423–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed