The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate long-term treatment effects of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP).
Design:
Included manuscripts met the following criteria: (1) involved patients with UCLP who received NAM; (2) included comparison group(s) who either received non-NAM passive presurgical infant orthopedic appliances (PSIO) or who did not receive any PSIO; (3) reported at least one objective or validated measure of nasolabial, craniofacial, or palatal form; and (4) had patient follow-up beyond 4 years of age.
Results:
A total of 12 studies were included in this review. Meta-analyses were possible for Asher-McDade parameters and cephalometric measurements. Compared to patients who did not receive any PSIO, those who underwent NAM therapy were more likely to have good to excellent frontal nasal form (Risk ratio: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.24-3.68) and vermillion border (Risk ratio: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.19-2.71). However, there were no statistically significant differences in cephalometric measurements between these groups. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences between patients receiving NAM versus non-NAM PSIO. There was insufficient evidence to determine the impact of NAM on dental arch development.
Conclusions:
The preponderance of evidence in this review suggests that NAM produces benefits in nasolabial aesthetic form when compared with no appliance-based presurgical treatment. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether NAM produces such benefits when compared with other passive PSIOs.
AbbottMMMearaJG. Nasoalveolar molding in cleft care: is it efficacious?Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(3):659–666.
2.
Akarsu-GuvenBArisanAOzgurFAksuM. Influence of nasoalveolar molding on skeletal development in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate at 5 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018;153(4):489–495.
3.
AlHayyanWAPaniSCAlJoharAJAlQatamiFM. The Effects of presurgical nasoalveolar molding on the midface symmetry of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a long-term follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(7):e1764.
4.
Armijo-OlivoSStilesCRHagenNABiondoPDCummingsGG. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(1):12–18.
5.
Asher-McdadeCRobertsCShawWCGallagerC. Development of a method for rating nasolabial appearance in patients with clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28(4):385–391.
BittarPGCarlsonARMabie-DeRuyterAMarcusJRAlloriAC. Implementation of a standardized data-collection system for comprehensive appraisal of cleft care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(10):1382–1390.
8.
BrattströmVMølstedKPrahl-AndersenBSembGShawWC. The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 2: craniofacial form and nasolabial appearance. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):69–77.
9.
ChangCSPorYCLiouEJChangCJChenPKNoordhoffMS. Long-term comparison of four techniques for obtaining nasal symmetry in unilateral complete cleft lip patients: a single surgeon’s experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(4):1276–1284.
10.
ClarkSLTeichgraeberJFFleshmanRGShawJDChavarriaCKauCHGatenoJXiaJJ. Long-term treatment outcome of presurgical nasoalveolar molding in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22(1):333–336.
11.
DenglerJPadovanoWMDavidgeKMcKayVYeeAMackinnonSE. Dissemination and implementation science in plastic and reconstructive surgery: perfecting, protecting and promoting the innovation that defines our specialty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;147(2):303e–313e.
12.
ElliottDSMihalicS. Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention programs. Prev Sci. 2004;5(1):47–53.
13.
FunayamaEYamamotoYOyamaAFurukawaHMuraoNHayashiTMaedaTOsawaM. Comparison of nasal symmetry between presurgical nasal stenting and postsurgical nasal retainer placement in unilateral clefts. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(1):133–136.
14.
GraysonBHCuttingCWoodR. Preoperative columella lengthening in bilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;92(7):1422–1423.
15.
GraysonBHGarfinkleJS. Early cleft management: the case for nasoalveolar molding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(2):134.
16.
GraysonBHMaullD. Nasoalveolar molding for infants born with clefts of the lip, alveolus, and palate. Semin Plast Surg. 2005;19(4):294–301. Thieme Medical Publishers.
17.
HigginsJPAltmanDGGøtzschePCJüniPMoherDOxmanADSavovićJSchulzKFWeeksLSterneJA. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343(7829):d5928.
18.
HigginsJPGreenS. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
19.
KirbschusAGeschDHeinrichAGedrangeT.Presurgical nasoalveolar molding in patients with unilateral clefts of lip, alveolus and palate. Case study and review of the literature. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006;34(suppl 2):45–48.
20.
KornbluthMCampbellREDaskalogiannakisJRossEJGlickPHRussellKADoucetJCHathawayRRLongREJrSitzmanTJ. Active presurgical infant orthopedics for unilateral cleft lip and palate: intercenter outcome comparison of Latham, modified McNeil, and nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(5):648–649.
21.
LefebvreCGlanvilleJBriscoeSLittlewoodAMarshallCMetzendorfMINoel-StorrARaderTShokranehFThomasJ, et al.Searching for and selecting studies. In: HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJCumpstonMLiTPageMJWelchVA eds Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley; 2019:67–107.
22.
LongREJrHathawayRDaskalogiannakisJMercadoARussellKCohenMSembGShawW. The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 1. Principles and study design. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(3):239–243.
23.
MaillardSRetrouveyJMAhmedMKTaubPJ. Correlation between nasoalveolar molding and surgical, aesthetic, functional and socioeconomic outcomes following primary repair surgery: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2017;8(3):e2.
24.
MarsMPlintDAHoustonWBerglandOSembG. The Goslon Yardstick: a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(4):314–322.
25.
MassieJPBruckmanKRifkinWJRunyanCMShetyePRGraysonBFloresRL. The effect of nasoalveolar molding on nasal airway anatomy: a 9-year follow-up of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(4):596–601.
26.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Int Med. 2009;151(4):264–269.
27.
MosmullerDBijnenCKramerGDisseMPrahlCKuikDNiessenFGriotJD. The Asher-McDade aesthetic index in comparison with two scoring systems in nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(4):1242–1245.
28.
MosseyPALittleJMungerRGDixonMJShawWC. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet. 2009;374(9703):1773–1785.
29.
NamdarPLal AlizadehFEtezadiTSadriLShivaA. Effect of nasoalveolar molding on nasal symmetry in patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. J Pediatr Rev. 2020;8(2):79–92.
30.
PapadopoulosMAKoumpridouEVakalisMPapageorgiouS. Effectiveness of pre-surgical infant orthopedic treatment for cleft lip and palate patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2012;15(4):207–236.
31.
PatelPARubinMSCloustonSLalezaradehFBrechtLECuttingCBShetyePRWarrenSMGraysonBH. Comparative study of early secondary nasal revisions and costs in patients with clefts treated with and without nasoalveolar molding. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(4):1229–1233.
32.
PeanchitlertkajornSMercadoADaskalogiannakisJHathawayRRussellKSembGShawWLamichaneMCohenMLongREJr. An intercenter comparison of nasolabial appearance including a center using nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018a;55(5):655–663.
33.
PeanchitlertkajornSMercadoADaskalogiannakisJHathawayRRussellKSembGShawWLamichaneMFesslerJLongREJr. An intercenter comparison of dental arch relationships and craniofacial form including a center using nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J2018b;55(6):821–829.
34.
PerlettiGMontiEMagriVCaiTClevesATrinchieriAMontanariE. The association between prostatitis and prostate cancer. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2017;89(4):259–265.
35.
PfeiferTMGraysonBHCuttingCB. Nasoalveolar molding and gingivoperiosteoplasty versus alveolar bone graft: an outcome analysis of costs in the treatment of unilateral cleft alveolus. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(1):26–29.
36.
RubinMSCloustonSAEsenlikEShetyePRFloresRLGraysonBH. Midface growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with a nasoalveolar molding protocol. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(6):1640–1643.
SavovićJWeeksLSterneJATurnerLAltmanDGMoherDHigginsJP. Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):37.
39.
ScheuerHAHöltjeW-JHasundAPfeiferG. Prognosis of facial growth in patients with unilateral complete clefts of the lip, alveolus and palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001;29(4):198–204.
40.
SembGBrattströmVMølstedKPrahl-AndersenBZuurbierPRumseyNShawWC. The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 4: relationship among treatment outcome, patient/parent satisfaction, and the burden of care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):83–92.
41.
SembGEnemarkHFriedeHPaulinGLiljaJRautioJAndersenMÅbyholmFLohmanderAShawW, et al.Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 1. planning and management. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51(1):2–13.
42.
ShawWCSembGNelsonPBrattströmVMølstedKPrahl-AndersenBGundlachKK. The Eurocleft project 1996-2000: overview. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001;29(3):131–140.
43.
ShettyVAgrawalRKSailerHF. Long-term effect of presurgical nasoalveolar molding on growth of maxillary arch in unilateral cleft lip and palate: randomized controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(8):977–987.
SingerEDaskalogiannakisJRussellKAMercadoAMHathawayRRStoutlandALongREJrFesslerJSembGShawWC. Burden of care of various infant orthopedic protocols for improvement of nasolabial esthetics in patients with CUCLP. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(9):1236–1243.
46.
SischoLChanJWSteinMSmithCVan AalstJBroderHL. Nasoalveolar molding: prevalence of cleft centers offering NAM and who seeks it. Cleft Palate Craniofac J2012;49(3):270–275.
47.
StangA. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–605.
48.
TseRWOhEGrussJSHopperRABirgfeldCB. Crowdsourcing as a novel method to evaluate aesthetic outcomes of treatment for unilateral cleft lip. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(4):864–874.
49.
UzelAAlparslanZN. Long-term effects of presurgical infant orthopedics in patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(5):587–595.
50.
van der HeijdenPDijkstraPUStellingsmaCvan der LaanBFKorsten-MeijerAGGoorhuis-BrouwerSM. Limited evidence for the effect of presurgical nasoalveolar molding in unilateral cleft on nasal symmetry: a call for unified research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(1):62e–71e.
51.
WellsGASheaBO’ConnellDPetersonJWelchVLososMTugwellP. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Oxford; 2000.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
