Title No Strong Evidence to Suggest that Non-Speech Oral Motor Treatments (NSOMT) Are an Effective Treatment for Children with Developmental Speech-Sound Disorders
Clinical Question Will the use of non-speech oral motor treatment (NSOMT) in children with speech-sound disorders help improve speech, compared to no treatment?
Clinical Bottom Line There is no strong evidence to suggest that non-speech oral motor treatments (NSOMT) are an effective treatment for children with developmental speech-sound disorders. This is based on only three studies that were small in scale, which means that it is highly likely that participants in these studies were not representative of its target population, and which had several other limitations. There have been limited types of non-speech oral motor treatments for treating children with speech-sound disorders of unknown origins with the sounds “s” and “z.” The overall applicability of the evidence is limited and incomplete.
Best Evidence  
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
25805060Lee/20153 studies involving 22 children; ages ranging from 3 to 16 years oldSystematic review of randomized controlled trials
Key resultsThe sensitivity analysis for one of the studies was based on consideration of “best-case” and “worst-case” scenarios to assess which results of the review could be altered by the missing data. Two studies found that non-speech oral motor treatment was not more effective than conventional speech intervention. The overall quality of the evidence provided by the trials was judged to be low. Further research is needed in order to have a significant confidence to approximate the treatment effect of non-speech oral motor treatment.
Evidence Search Tongue thrust; non-speech oral motor treatment
Comments on
The Evidence
Validity: This article was a compilation of three randomized or quasi-randomized controlled studies. The randomized controlled trial was judged at low risk for selection bias. The two quasi-randomized controlled trials were judged as having an unclear risk of bias. All groups in all studies were treated the same other than the intervention and were judged by a speech and language therapist. Blinding of the participants was not possible because of the nature of the intervention and overall, the studies were considered to have a high risk for selection bias. Perspective: No strong evidence suggests that non-speech oral motor treatment is effective at helping children with a developmental speech-sound disorder, and more research is needed.
Applicability The demographics of these studies included children aged 3 to 16 with a sound-speech disorder. The information from this systematic review could possibly be used in a dental setting. If teeth have not developed correctly and are the cause of a speech-sound disorder, a pediatric dentist can address the dental deficiency. The pediatric dentist could also recommend this information about non-speech oral motor treatment to the child’s pediatrician if there are concerns from the parent. The benefit of non-speech oral motor treatment to the patient would include improved speech; while on the other hand, it is possible that no improvement to speech will be made, as every case is different.
Specialty (General Dentistry) (Pediatric Dentistry)
Keywords Speech-sound disorders, oral motor treatment
ID# 3362
Date of submission 12/03/2018
E-mail grantkj@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Katie Grant
Co-author(s) Alexis Lopez
Co-author(s) e-mail lopez21@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Faculty mentor Carol Nguyen
Faculty mentor e-mail nguyenc@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
None available