Printer Friendly

Orofacial myofunctional evaluation in cleft lip and palate: an integrative literature review.


The stomatognathic system consists of oral structures and performs several essential functions that interrelate with its anatomy. Thus, any influence on this system will result in adaptation (1). Cleft lip and palate affect the stomatognathic system and, consequently, the performance of orofacial functions.

Even after surgical correction, individuals may present with orofacial myofunctional changes that require speech therapy (2). Thus, a detailed evaluation of the stomatognathic system (3,4) is essential for the speech-language pathologist to diagnose and treat dysfunction. There is a need for a well-structured data collection and recording system, and for standardized evaluation protocols (5).

Among the functions performed by the stomatognathic system, speech is altered by the presence of a cleft lip and palate. This contributes to further stigmatization of individuals with this malformation, which has been widely studied in the literature. However, since the other components of this system are also important for achieving morpho-functional balance and completion of treatment, breathing, chewing, and swallowing functions should also be addressed. The question is whether all orofacial myofunctional components are being evaluated in individuals with cleft lip and palate.

Speech therapy has emphasized the importance of evidence-based practice, and integrative review is a method that meets this objective, as it analyzes and synthesizes the results of selected studies, making them useful in both clinical practice and scientific research. This type of review has several purposes: definition of concepts, revision of theories and evidence, and analysis of methodological problems of a particular topic that allows the inclusion of experimental and non-experimental studies, in order to understand a specific subject (6).

Therefore, this study aimed to identify the focus of scientific publications in the area of orofacial motricity in individuals with cleft lip and palate, as well as validated protocols used in speech therapy evaluation.


This study was conducted using the following databases: Medline, SciELO, Lilacs, and Google Scholar, through keywords including: cleft palate + cleft lip + evaluation + speech therapy + stomatognathic system + speech + chewing + swallowing + breathing + validation studies, in Portuguese and English.

Articles published between 2012 and 2017 that addressed speech therapy evaluation with regard to aspects of the stomatognathic system in individuals with cleft lip and palate not associated with syndromes were selected. Articles that used any validated protocol and analysis regarding the level of scientific evidence were categorized. The titles, abstracts, and articles that met the inclusion criteria were read in full.

As a selection criterion, all literature review articles, clinical cases, monographs, theses, and books were excluded. The articles included in the study were analyzed by a single researcher and tabulated according to the following categories: year of publication, subject area, focus, instrument used for evaluation, type of study, study objective and results.


The database search identified 572 articles based on the title and abstract. Of these, 482 were excluded, 405 for not meeting the inclusion criteria and/or not involving speech therapy evaluations in orofacial motricity, and 77 due to duplication. Thus, 90 articles were included and analyzed in their entirety (Figure 1).

The selected articles were grouped by category: year of publication, subject area, focus, instrument used for evaluation, type of study, study objective, and results. The articles were subsequently grouped according to the focus of study: 90% (80 articles) focused on the evaluation of speech, 1% (1 article) on chewing, 1% (1 article) on swallowing, 1% (1 article) on orofacial structures, 4% (4 articles) on breathing, and 3% (3 articles) on evaluation of orofacial structures and function (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the distribution of articles according to the subject area, and the focus of the publications by date.

Out of 80 studies (100%) that considered speech, 26 (32%) referred to articulation, 21 (26%) to results after surgical procedures, 2 (3%) to results according to different surgical techniques, 4(5%) to speech and language, 2 (3%) to results after speech therapy, and 25 (31%) to speech and evaluation of velopharyngeal function.

This review indicated that speech was the most discussed topic. This is understandable, since individuals with a speech impairment may be devalued by society due to their impaired ability to converse. In addition, speech challenges can influence individuals in other ways, and may be associated with emotional and/ or psychological problems, such as low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression (7), thus affecting quality of life in those with cleft lip and palate (8).

Individuals with cleft lip and palate need repair surgery aimed at anatomical and functional correction, and studies have attempted to identify the optimal timing of surgery, as well as to define the best surgical technique (9,10). However, surgical failures may occur due to factors such as surgical technique and skill, cleft palate width, and/or inadequate postoperative care (11). Secondary surgical procedures on the palate may be necessary, mainly to provide adequate velopharyngeal function. When the velopharyngeal mechanism fails, a gap or communication between the nasal and oral cavities results invelopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD). This can be caused by a lack of tissue (velopharyngeal insufficiency) or by an alteration in the mobility of structures (velopharyngeal incompetence) (12). The effect on speech presents as compensatory articulation, hypernasality, nasal air leakage, weak intraoral pressure, and nasal turbulence (13).

These findings explain the prevalence of the focus on speech in the articles analyzed. Among the selected studies, 74 used perceptual-auditory evaluation in speech analysis. The literature reports that this method is the most used by speech therapists for speech analysis, and is considered the gold standard (14,15). However, it is a subjective method, and depends on the experience and training of the listener (16). Therefore, complementary examinations are suggested to verify the reliability of the results. Complementary instrumental exams, such as nasometry, nasoendoscopy, rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry, videofluoroscopy, and electromyography, were identified in this literature review.

Only 5 articles used validated evaluation protocols; only 1 referred to a proposal for an orofacial myofunctional evaluation protocol, while the others used existing evaluation protocols. The other 4 studies used the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech-Augmented (CAPS-A) (17), which is considered a reliable, valid, and acceptable speech audit toolin individuals with cleft lip and palate. Used inthe UK and Ireland, and recently by the Americleft group (18), it evaluates 8 parameters of speech: intelligibility, hypernasality, hyponasality, voice, nasal air leakage, nasal turbulence, facial mimicry, and articular changes characteristic of cleft lip and palate, aiming to standardize evaluation and enable sharing of the results with other institutions (19).

Using the the selected articles, the characteristics of studies that presented validated evaluation protocols were analyzed (Table 1).

Data on the articles presented in Table 1.

Britton, Albery, Bowden et al. (20):

Parameters for the analysis of speech and treatment results were established in 12 centers in Great Britain and Ireland, aiming at a national audit process to standardize the records of individuals with cleft lip and palate, and to improve treatment. This observational, cohort, prospective, qualitative study, with level of evidence 3, was split into 2 phases, and 1,110 speech samples were selected from children with cleft lip and palate born between 2001 and 2006. Samples were analyzed by speech therapists experienced in the application of the CAPS-A protocol17 to determine the optimal timing of speech evaluation and recording and to compare inter-center speech results according to established parameters: speech evaluation (2 and 5 years old), speech and surgery, and surgery and hearing. The results showed flaws in the standardization of evaluations and data recording. However, it was found that 48% of children had normal speech, 66% did not have difficulties in speech development, and 60% did not have compensatory articulation. This study enabled a revision of national speech therapy protocols, as well as modification of evaluation and treatment parameters, thus improving the ability to compare results for use in clinical practice, and to enhance the quality of life in this population.

Chapman, Baylis, Trost-Cardamone (18):

The reliability of inter- and intra-rater speech results was compared in 2 studies using the CAPS-A17 protocol in British and American-Canadian English. This was a cross-sectional, prospective, qualitative, observational study, with level of evidence 4. Ten speech samples were selected from 5 and 10-year-old children with cleft lip and palate, and 9 examiners were invited to analyze them. British samples were analyzed in 3 phases: 1) before training, 2) immediately after training, and 3) one month after training; American samples were analyzed 4 to 5 months after the evaluations for subsequent comparison. Results suggested that the classification of speech results was reliable, but the study demonstrated a lack of uniformity for all analyzed parameters, which justifies prior systematic training, to ensure acceptable levels of reliability.

Graziani, Fukushiro, Genaro (21):

This was an observational, transversal, prospective, qualitative study, with level of evidence 4. The authors developed and validated the content of a protocol entitled "Orofacial Myofunctional Evaluation for Individuals with Cleft Lip and Palate." A total of 75 individuals of both sexes

with cleft lip and palate, ranging in age from 7 to 29 years old, participated in the study and were divided into 3 life-stages, i.e., childhood, adolescence, and adult life, in order to verify the applicability of the protocol. Content validation was performedusing expert opinions, as well as by the Content Validity Index, and a proposal for evaluation involving structural and functional aspects of the stomatognathic system was developed. However, the study did not use a control group to characterize orofacial myofunctional changes or treatment results after interventions. Moreover, the protocol was not validated in its entirety.

Sell et al. (22):

Speech results and interventions performed in 5-year-old children with cleft lip and palate seen at specialized centers in the UK were evaluated. The CAPS-A17 protocol was used to evaluate the following parameters: articulation, intelligibility, velopharyngeal function, and presence of fistula. These were associated with factors such as hearing loss, speech therapy, secondary surgery, and socio-demographic and parental factors. This was an observational, cross-sectional, prospective, quantitative study, with level of evidence 2. Results demonstrated variations in speech results among the different centers in the UK. The authors observed variation in the treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency, which indicates the importance of treatment management and early speech therapy intervention. Because this was a multicenter study, there was a great deal of variability in the interventions and a lack of standardization in evaluation, despite use of the same protocol, which probably affected the results. Some factors were not controlled, such as the choice of a single surgeon, age of reparative surgery, and surgical technique.

Castick, Knight, Sell (19):

The reliability of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), when compared to an ordinal scale, was investigated in order to classify perceptual judgments of 6 speech parameters in individuals with cleft lip and palate: hypernasality, hyponasality, nasal leakage, nasal turbulence, intelligibility, and acceptability. This was an observational, transversal, prospective, quantitative study, with level of evidence 3. Speech therapists trained in the use of ordinal scales, CAPS-A (17) protocol guides, and universal parameters (23) were invited to analyze 25 speech samples from individuals with cleft lip and palate. After hearing the samples, they classified them separately, using an ordinal scale and the VAS. Results showed that both scales are reliable instruments for all parameters evaluated. However, the use of these scales requires prior training, and the value range of the VAS may generate more subjectivity, when compared to the ordinal scale.

Although a standardized and validated protocol was generally not used for speech evaluation in the 75 remaining articles, 78% (58 articles) used perceptual-auditory evaluation, 9% (7 articles) used existing evaluation protocols, and 13% (10 articles) did not clarify the evaluation method used. It was found that 50% (40 articles) used complementary examinations for speech evaluation.

Of the 90 articles included in the study, 37% had diagnosis as their main goal, with a focus on prognosis in 63%. One study (24) evaluated speech intelligibility after primary palatoplasty in 12-month-old children with cleft lip and palate and verified that surgical intervention demonstrated satisfactory results for speech. Of the speech samples analyzed, 76% showed good intelligibility, 14% acceptable intelligibility, and 10% poor intelligibility.Another study (25) evaluated the presence of hypernasality after surgical correction of the secondary palate, and the results showed a reduction of hypernasality in 75% of cases and elimination in 32%. Of the selected studies, 90% used the judgment of experienced examiners, and 7% of lay examiners. According to the literature (19,26), the use of reference and training models improves the reliability of the analysis. Cross-sectional study modelswere prevalent (95%), and only 1 article (27) presented a randomized clinical study to verify the results of facial and speech development during the mixed dentition phase in individuals submitted to 2 different treatment protocols for correction of unilateral cleft lip and palate. Results showed small differences between the 2 protocols (Millard technique combined with nasal correction and Millard technique combined with nasal correction and anterior palate closure) and speech results. One of the groups showed potentially better development, while the other showed better speech results. However, neither protocol was considered superior. In 33% of the publications, the methodology and design of the study were not well defined, which highlights the need to improve the scientific method in order to enable reproducibility. The articles covered broad age groups, and complete cleft lip and palate was the most studied subject. Speech was the focus of the publications in this study period, and other orofacial functions, such as chewing, swallowing, and breathing, as well as orofacial structures such as the lips, tongue, cheeks, teeth, hard palate, soft palate, uvula, and pharyngeal walls, were poorly investigated.

Thus, studies are needed to evaluate these other aspects, as well as other orofacial functions, since changes in the morphology of the stomatognathic system present with functional manifestations. Care standards for this population require improvement. Standardized collection and recording of evaluation results are needed, in addition to validated protocols and systematic training in their use. Therefore, new studies that consider all aspects of orofacial myofunctional evaluation with greater methodological rigor are necessary.


In the last 5 years, there has been an important increase in scientific production in the field of orofacial motricity in cleft lip and palate cases. However, speech is the prevalent theme, probably because it is the cause of greatest stigma in these individuals. On the other hand, the evaluation of other orofacial functions is still lacking despite its importance in diagnosis and in defining the overall rehabilitation process. Moreover, standardized protocols are rarely used.


(1.) Goncalves LPV, Toledo OA, Otero SAM. Relacao entre bruxismo, fatores oclusais e habitos bucais. Dental Press J Orthod. 2010;15(2):97-104.

(2.) Lohmander A, Persson C. A longitudinal study of speech production in swedish children with unilateral cleft lip and palate and two-stage palatal repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(1):32-41.

(3.) Silva RN, Santos EMNG. Ocorrencia de alteracoes de motricidade oral e fala em individuosportadores de fissuralabiopalatinas. RBPS. 2004;17(1):27-30.

(4.) Figueiredo MC, Pinto NF, Faustino-Silva DD, Oliveira M. Fissura bilateral completa de labio e palato: alteracoesdentarias de maoclusao--relato de caso clinico. UEPG: Ciencias Biologicas e da Saude. 2008;14(1):7-14.

(5.) Sell D, John A, Harding-Bell A, Sweeney T, Hegarty F, Freeman J. Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech (CAPS-A): a comprehensive training package for speech analysis. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2009;44(4):529-48.

(6.) Souza MT, Silva MD, Carvalho R. Revisao integrativa: o que e e como fazer? Einstein. 2010;8(1):102-6.

(7.) Dzioba A, Skarakis-Doyle E, Doyle PC, Campbell W, Dykstra AD. A comprehensive description of functioning and disability in children with velopharyngeal insufficiency. J Commun Disord. 2013;46(4):388-400.

(8.) Tsangaris E, Riff KWYW, Goodacre T, Forrest CR, Dreise M, Sykes J et al. Establishing content validity of the CLEFT-Q: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for cleft lip/palate. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(4):e1305.

(9.) Sommerlad BC. International confederation for cleft lip and palateand related craniofacial anomalies task force report: palatoplasty in the speaking individual with unrepairedcleftpalate. CleftPalate Craniofac J. 2014;51(6):e122-8.

(10.) Dissaux C,Grollemund B, Bodin F, Picard A, Vazquez MP, Morand B et al. Evaluation of 5-year-old children with complete cleft lip and palate: Multicenter study. Part 2: Functional results. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(2):94-103.

(11.) Smith DM, Losee JE. Cleft palate repair. Clin Plast Surg. 2014;41(2):189-210.

(12.) Kummer AW. Speech evaluation for patients with cleft palate. Clin Plast Surg. 2014;41(2):241-51.

(13.) Sie KCY, Tampakopoulou DA, Sorom JBA, Gruss JS, Eblen LE. Results with Furlow palatoplasty in management of velopharyngeal insufficiency. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(1):17-25.

(14.) Kuehn D, Moller K. Speech and language issues in the cleft palate population: the state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37(4):348-83.

(15.) Kummer AW, Clark SL, Redle EE, Thomsen LL, Billmire DA. Current practice in assessing and reporting speech outcomes of cleft palate and velopharyngeal surgery: a survey of cleft palate/ craniofacial professionals. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(2):146-52.

(16.) Lewis KE, Watterson TL, Houghton SM. The influence of listener experience and academic training on ratings of nasality. J Commun Disord. 2003;36(1):49-58.

(17.) John A, Sell D, Sweeney T, Harding-Bell A, Williams A. The cleft audit protocol for speech-augmented: a validated and reliable measure for auditing cleft speech. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(3):272-88.

(18.) Chapman KL, Baylis A, Trost-Cardamone J, Cordero KN, Dixon A, Dobbelsteyn C et al. The Americleft Speech Project: a training and reliability study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(1):93-108.

(19.) Castick S, Knight RA, SellD. Perceptual judgments of resonance, nasal airflow, understandability, and acceptability in speakers with cleft palate: ordinal versus visual analogue scaling. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2017;54(1):19-31.

(20.) Britton L, Albery L, Bowden M, Harding-Bell A, Phippen G, Sell D. A cross-sectional cohort study of speech in five-year-olds with cleft palate +/- lip to support development of national audit standards: benchmarking speech standards in the United Kingdom. Cleft Palate Craniofacial J. 2014;51(4):431-51.

(21.) Graziani AF, Fukushiro AP, Genaro KF. Proposal and content validation of an orofacial myofunctional assessment protocol for individuals with cleft lip and palate. CoDAS. 2015;27(2):193-200.

(22.) Sell D, South by L, Wren Y, Wills AK, Hall A, Mahmoud O et al. Centre-level variation in speech outcome and interventions, and factors associated with poor speech outcomes in 5-year-old children with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate: The Cleft Care UK study. Part 4. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017;20(2):27-39.

(23.) Henningsson G, Kuehn DP, Sell D, Sweeney T, Trost-Cardamone JE, Whitehall TL. Universal parameters for reporting speech outcomesin individuals with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(1):1-17.

(24.) Andreoli ML, Yamashita RP, Trindade-Suedam IK, Fukushiro AP. Speech intelligibility after primary palatoplasty: listener perception. Audiol Commun Res. 2016;21:e1650.

(25.) Yamashita RP, Silva ASC, Fukushiro AP, Trindade IEK. Perceptual and nasometric assessment of hypernasality after intravelarveloplasty for surgical management of velopharyngeal insufficiency: long-term effects. Rev. CEFAC. 2014;16(3):899-906.

(26.) Oliveira ACASF, Scarmagnani RH, Fukushiro AP, Yamashita RP. The influence of listener training on the perceptual assessment of hypernasality. CoDAS. 2016;28(2):141-8.

(27.) Ganesh P, Murthy J, Ulaghanathan N, Savitha VH. A randomized controlled trial comparing two techniques for unilateral cleft lip and palate: growth and speech outcomes during mixed dentition. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2015;43(6):790-5.

Andreia Fernandes Graziani [1]

Giedre Berretin-Felix [2]

Katia Flores Genaro [1,2]

[1] Hospital de Reabilitacao de Anomalias Craniofaciais da Universidade de Sao Paulo--HRAC-USP Bauru, Sao Paulo, Brasil.

[2] Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Universidade de Sao Paulo--FOB-USP Bauru, Sao Paulo, Brasil.

Research support source: Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel CAPES.

Conflict of interests: Nonexistent

Received on: May 14, 2018

Accept on: September 28, 2018

Corresponding address:

Katia Flores Genaro

Departamento de Fonoaudiologia da Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru-USP

Alameda Dr. Octavio Pinheiro Brisolla 9-75, Vila Universitaria

CEP: 17012-901--Bauru--SP


Caption: Figure 1. Steps of the literature review analysis process

Caption: Figure 3. Distribution of research articles according to the subject area and time period
Table 1. List of selected articles that presented evaluation
protocols in their methodology

JOURNAL                  YEAR OF          AUTHORS

Cleft Palate-             2014       Britton L et al.
Craniofacial Journal
CoDAS                     2015         Graziani AF,
                                       Fukushiro AP
                                         Genaro KF
Cleft Palate-             2016       Chapman KL et al.
Craniofacial Journal

Orthodontics &            2017         Sell D et al.
Cleft Palate-             2017       Castick S, Knight
Craniofacial Journal                    RA, Sell D

JOURNAL                      FOCUS          EVALUATION      LEVEL OF
                                              PROTOCOL      EVIDENCE

Cleft Palate-               CLP/CP             CAPS-A          3
Craniofacial Journal     (5 years old)
CoDAS                       75 CLP         CLEFT PROTOCOL      4
                       (7 and 29 years
Cleft Palate-          19 CLP/CP 1 VPD         CAPS-A          4
Craniofacial Journal   (5 and 10 years
Orthodontics &             268 CLP             CAPS-A          2
Craniofacial             (5 years old)
Cleft Palate-               25 CLP             CAPS-A          3
Craniofacial Journal

Legend: CLP = Cleft Lip and Palate; CP = Cleft Palate; VPD =
Velopharyngeal Dysfunction; CAPS-A = Cleft Audit Protocol for

Figure 2. Distribution of articles according to subject area

Year of       Subject Area   No. of     Focus
Publication                  Articles

2012 to       Speech         80         ---cleft lip and
2017                                    palate
                                        --solated cleft
                                        --broad age

2014          Chewing        1          --cleft lip and
                                        --7 to 14
                                        years old
                                        --47 cases

2015          Swallowing     1          --cleft lip and
                                        --0 to 3 years
                                        --7 cases
2013 and      Breathing      4          --cleft lip and
2015                                    palate
                                        --6 to 40
                                        years old

2015          Orofacial      1          --cleft lip
              Structures                --10 to 20
                                        years old
                                        --70 cases

2012 and      Orofacial      3          --cleft lip and
2015          Structure/                palate
              Function                  --7 to 28
                                        years old

Year of       Evaluation Method        Type of Study

2012 to       --perceptual-auditory    * retrospective
2017          analysis                 * prospective
              --instrumental exams:    * descriptive
              * nasometry,             * qualitative
              * nasoendoscopy,         * quantitative
              * acoustic rhinometry,
              * rhinomanometry,
              * videofluoroscopy,
              * electromyography

2014          --chewing tests          * prospective
              --electromyography       * descriptive
                                       * qualitative

2015          --clinical exam          * prospective
              --videofluoroscopy       * descriptive
                                       * quantitative

2013 and      --clinical exam          * retrospective
2015          --respiratory symptom    * prospective
              questionnaire            * descriptive
              --instrumental exams:    * qualitative
              * videonasoendoscopy     * quantitative
              * rhinomanometry
              * acoustic rhinometry

2015          --clinical exam          * retrospective
              --nasoendoscopy          * prospective
                                       * quantitative

2012 and      --clinical exam          * retrospective
2015                                   * prospective
                                       * descriptive
                                       * qualitative
                                       * quantitative

Year of       Objectives           Results

2012 to       --speech             --phonetic, phonological, and
2017          evaluation           velopharyngeal function-related
              * therapy,           alterations;
              language and         --need for evaluation protocol and
              velopharyngeal       training;
              function;            --effective pharyngeal flap and
              --speech results     veloplasty in the correction of
              after surgery        velopharyngeal dysfunction
                                   --undefined best age and surgical
                                   --subsidiary instrumental methods
                                   for speech evaluation
2014          --verify             --unilateral fissure with greater
              concordance          amplitude of electromyographic
              between 3            signal than bilateral;
              evaluation           --lack of agreement between
              methods and the      methods.
              chewing pattern
              in unilateral and
              bilateral cleft
2015          --evaluate           --choking, nasal regurgitation, and
              swallowing           failure of velopharyngeal function

2013 and      --evaluate           --reduction of nasopharyngeal
2015          nasopharyngeal       dimension;
              dimensions           --presence of respiratory symptoms
              and respiratory      after pharyngeal flap surgery in
              symptoms after       older individuals

2015          --identify signs     --15% of cases with signs of hidden
              of hidden            submucosal fissure
              submucosal cleft
              in individuals
              with cleft lip and
              without clinical
              signs of cleft
2012 and      --evaluate           --without influence on speech, but
2015          influence of the     on mobility;
              short frenulum on    --a protocol was developed with
              speech;              structural and functional aspects
              --elaborate a        of the stomatognathic system, and
              myofunctional        the content was validated;
              evaluation           --presence of compensatory,
              protocol applied     compulsory and phonological
              to the cleft, and    disorders;
              carry out content    --change in tonicity, mobility
              validation;          (tongue, lips and cheeks), habitual
              --investigate        posture (tongue and lips) and
              speech and           occlusion
COPYRIGHT 2019 CEFAC - Associacao Institucional em Saude e Educacao
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2019 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:texto en ingles
Author:Fernandes Graziani, Andreia; Berretin-Felix, Giedre; Flores Genaro, Katia
Publication:Revista CEFAC: Atualizacao Cientifica em Fonoaudiologia e Educacao
Date:Jan 1, 2019
Previous Article:Knowledge and experience of Family Health Team professionals in providing healthcare for deaf people.
Next Article:Relationship between dizziness and learning difficulties in schoolchildren: an integrative review.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters