{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01755926251097454, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006145741878841089, 'mean_word_length': 5.589595375722543, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ear canal dynamics: Facts versus perception

dynamics in the patient population, often pose challenges in fitting custom earmolds and hearing aids. These problems commonly include acoustic feedback, discomfort, and retention problems. Garcia1 and Pirzanski and Berge2,3 have reported that the softness of the ear canal cartilage varies among individuals. While most subjects had firm canals, others had remarkably soft canals. Oliveira4,5 and Pirzanski and Berge2,6 have pointed out that mandibular movements result in canal cartilage compression and expansion, which lead to changes in the volume of the ear canal. The magnitude of these changes varies significantly among individuals. These reports were limited because they covered the general population and investigated canal cartilage softness and mandibular movements independent of each other, not as an interactive complex. Further, they failed to address the issue of whether or not ear canal dynamics could be satisfactorily assessed prior to impression taking, thereby allowing the clinician to choose the most appropriate impression technique and material for a given patient.