To critically appraise the body of scientific literature supporting the risks and efficacy of nasoalveolar molding (NAM), specifically in contrast to alternative methods of presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO) or to treatment without PSIO.
Main Outcome Measures
Five outcome domains were considered: nasolabial aesthetics; dentoalveolar relationship; midfacial growth; cost and burden of care; and number of anesthetic events.
Design
MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were queried for articles from the first description of the Grayson-Santiago NAM technique (1993) through December 13, 2021. After the application of inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, selected articles were critically appraised using a systematic framework that included risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools.
Results
A total of 88 studies were included. Level-I and -II evidence showed on par or better approximation and alveolar alignment achieved by NAM compared to other PSIO. Level-II and -III evidence showed improved nasolabial aesthetics compared to other PSIOs. Level-II and -III evidence supported no harm to maxillofacial skeletal growth through age 12. Sparse level-III evidence supported a reduced number of labial or nasal revisions following NAM. Level-II and -III evidence showed NAM requiring upfront cost and frequent appointments but reducing caregiver psychosocial burden and reducing long-term costs compared to select alternatives. Many studies carried a high risk of bias.
Conclusions
Current evidence supports the overall efficacy of NAM regarding short/mid-term outcomes, with a low risk of negative effects on midfacial growth or dental development. The high risk of bias discovered in many papers underscores the need for robust study design in future research.
BerkowitzS. Why hasn’t cutting and Grayson done a longitudinal study to show why nasoalveolar molding should not be used?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(1):141‐141. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618771892
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J. 2021(372):n71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
4.
PageMJMoherDBossuytPM, et al.PRISMA 2020 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J. 2021(372):n160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
5.
EQUATOR Network. Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR Network). Published June 2008. Accessed March 21, 2022. https://www.equator-network.org.
6.
CaulleyLCatalá-LópezFWhelanJ, et al.Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;122:87‐94. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.006
7.
LogulloPMacCarthyAKirtleySCollinsGS. Reporting guideline checklists are not quality evaluation forms: they are guidance for writing. Health Sci Rep. 2020;3(2):e165. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.165
8.
SchulzKFAltmanDGMoherDCONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Br Med J. 2010;340:c332. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332
9.
von ElmEAltmanDGEggerM, et al.Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Br Med J. 2007;335(7624):806‐808. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD
10.
GagnierJJKienleGAltmanDG, et al.The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. BMJ Case Rep. 2013;2013:bcr2013201554. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2013-201554
11.
TufanaruCMZAromatarisECampbellJHoppLC. Chapter 3: systematic reviews of effectiveness. In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Accessed August 9, 2022. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.
12.
FlemyngEDwanKMooreTHPageMJHigginsJP. Risk of Bias 2 in Cochrane Reviews: a phased approach for the introduction of new methodology. Cochrane Editorial Unit, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Published online November 19, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000148.
13.
SchünemannHJCuelloCAklEA, et al.GRADE Guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:105‐114. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.012
14.
SterneJAHernánMAReevesBC, et al.ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J. Published onlineOctober 12, 2016:i4919. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
15.
SterneJACSavovićJPageMJ, et al.Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J. Published onlineAugust 28, 2019:l4898. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
16.
BurnsPBRohrichRJChungKC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):305‐310. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171
Cerón-ZapataAMLópez-PalacioAMRodriguez-ArdilaMJBerrio-GutiérrezLMDe MenezesMSforzaC. 3D Evaluation of maxillary arches in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients treated with nasoalveolar moulding vs. Hotz’s plate. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43(2):111‐118. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12350
21.
SabarinathVPThombarePHazareyPVRadhakrishnanVAgrekarS. Changes in maxillary alveolar morphology with nasoalveolar molding. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010;35(2):207‐212. doi:https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.35.2.f80u21362566qr34
22.
ChangCSWallaceCGPaiBC, et al.Comparison of two nasoalveolar molding techniques in unilateral complete cleft lip patients: a randomized, prospective, single-blind trial to compare nasal outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(2):275‐282. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000000361
23.
LiaoYFWangYCChenIJPaiCJKoWCWangYC. Comparative outcomes of two nasoalveolar molding techniques for bilateral cleft nose deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(1):103‐110. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000436827.95321.f2
GarfinkleJSKingTWGraysonBHBrechtLECuttingCB. A 12-year anthropometric evaluation of the nose in bilateral cleft lip-cleft palate patients following nasoalveolar molding and cutting bilateral cleft lip and nose reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(4):1659‐1667. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820a64d7
26.
KurnikNMCalisMSobolDLKapadiaHMercanETseRW. A comparative assessment of nasal appearance following nasoalveolar molding and primary surgical repair for treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. Published online2021:1075‐1084. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008462
27.
FuchigamiTKimuraNKibeT, et al.Effects of pre-surgical nasoalveolar moulding on maxillary arch and nasal form in unilateral cleft lip and palate before lip surgery. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017;20(4):209‐215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12199
28.
PungaRSharmaSM. Presurgical orthopaedic nasoalveolar molding in cleft lip and palate infants: a comparative evaluation of cases done with and without nasal stents. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2013;12(3):273‐288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12663-012-0434-y
29.
MonasterioLFordAGutiérrezCTastetsMEGarcíaJ. Comparative study of nasoalveolar molding methods: nasal elevator plus DynaCleft® versus NAM-Grayson in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(5):548‐554. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/11-245
30.
MishraBSinghAKZaidiJSinghGKAgrawalRKumarV. Presurgical nasoalveolar molding for correction of cleft lip nasal deformity: experience from northern India. Eplasty. 2010;10(55):443–457.
BonanthayaKNayakTBitraSRachwalskiMShettyPN. An assessment and comparison of nasolabial aesthetics in bilateral clefts using the anatomical subunit-based scale: a nasoalveolar moulding versus non-nasoalveolar moulding study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;48(3):298‐301. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2018.10.007
33.
BroderHLFloresRLCloustonS, et al.Surgeon’s and Caregivers’ appraisals of primary cleft lip treatment with and without nasoalveolar molding: a prospective multicenter pilot study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(3):938‐945. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000479979.83169.57
34.
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.03.006
35.
LeeCTGarfinkleJSWarrenSMBrechtLECuttingCBGraysonBH. Nasoalveolar molding improves appearance of children with bilateral cleft lip-cleft palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(4):1131‐1137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318184590c
36.
MassieJPBruckmanKRifkinWJ, et al.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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665617744062
37.
NakamuraNSasaguriMNozoeENishiharaKHasegawaHNakamuraS. Postoperative nasal forms after presurgical nasoalveolar molding followed by medial-upward advancement of nasolabial components with vestibular expansion for children with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(10):2222‐2231. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.098
38.
PatelPARubinMSCloustonS, et al.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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000001729
39.
SuriSDisthapornSAtenafuEGFisherDM. Presurgical presentation of columellar features, nostril anatomy, and alveolar alignment in bilateral cleft lip and palate after infant orthopedics with and without nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(3):314‐324. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/10-204
40.
AslanBIGülşenAFindikçioǧluKUzunerDÜçüncüN. Effects of nasoalveolar molding therapy on alveolar and palatal cleft deformities in unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(2):e179‐e184. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004243
41.
EzzatCFChavarriaCTeichgraeberJF, et al.Presurgical nasoalveolar molding therapy for the treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate: a preliminary study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(1):8‐12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/06-009
42.
FuchigamiTKimuraNTezukaM, et al.Comparison of short-term effects of presurgical nasoalveolar molding and Hotz’s plate on maxillary arch form in unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Oral Maxillofacial Surg Med Pathol. 2019;31(1):25‐30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoms.2018.08.008
43.
JaegerMBraga-SilvaJGehlenDSatoYZukerRFisherD. Correction of the alveolar gap and nostril deformity by presurgical passive orthodontia in the unilateral cleft lip. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;59(5):489‐494. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000259001.98869.d8
44.
RauARitschlLMMückeTWolffKDLoeffelbeinDJ. Nasoalveolar molding in cleft care—experience in 40 patients from a single centre in Germany. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118103. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118103
45.
SinghGDLevy-BercowskiDSantiagoPE. Three-dimensional nasal changes following nasoalveolar molding in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: geometric morphometrics. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(4):403‐409. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/04-063.1
46.
SinghGDLevy-BercowskiDYáñezMASantiagoPE. Three-dimensional facial morphology following surgical repair of unilateral cleft lip and palate in patients after nasoalveolar molding. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007;10(3):161‐166. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2007.00390.x
47.
SpenglerALChavarriaCTeichgraeberJFGatenoJXiaJJ. Presurgical nasoalveolar molding therapy for the treatment of bilateral cleft lip and palate: a preliminary study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(3):321‐328. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/05-093.1
Ruíz-EscolanoMGMartínez-PlazaAFernández-ValadésR, et al.Nasoalveolar molding therapy for the treatment of unilateral cleft lip and palate improves nasal symmetry and maxillary alveolar dimensions. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27(8):1978‐1982. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000003047
50.
DecWShetyePRDavidsonEH, et al.Presurgical nasoalveolar molding and primary gingivoperiosteoplasty reduce the need for bone grafting in patients with bilateral clefts. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24(1):186‐190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e318270fd21
51.
ShettyVVyasHJSharmaSMSailerHF. A comparison of results using nasoalveolar moulding in cleft infants treated within 1 month of life versus those treated after this period: development of a new protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(1):28‐36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2011.09.002
52.
ShettyVThakralASreekumarC. Comparison of early onset nasoalveolar molding with patients who presented for molding up to 1 year of age. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;74(4):811‐827. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2015.08.004
53.
ManciniLGibsonTLGraysonBHFloresRLStaffenbergDShetyePR. Three-dimensional soft tissue nasal changes after nasoalveolar molding and primary cheilorhinoplasty in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(1):31‐38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618771427
54.
GomezDFDonohueSTFigueroaAAPolleyJW. Nasal changes after presurgical nasoalveolar molding (PNAM) in the unilateral cleft lip nose. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(6):689‐700. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/11-007
55.
López-PalacioAMCerón-ZapataAMGómezDFDávila-CalleAPOjalvo-AriasMA. Nasal changes with nasoalveolar molding in Colombian patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Pediatr Dent. 2012;34(3):239‐244.
56.
PaiBCKoEWHuangCSLiouEJ. Symmetry of the nose after presurgical nasoalveolar molding in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a preliminary study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(6):658‐663. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/04-126.1
57.
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181ec21e4
58.
KinouchiNHoriuchiSYasueA, et al.Effectiveness of presurgical nasoalveolar molding therapy on unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity. Saudi Med J. 2018;39(2):169‐178. doi:https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2018.2.21020
59.
KuoSCHLaiJPHsiehCHChenTYChangYJHuangF. Use of nasal conformer after birth effectively improves nostril symmetry in patients with unilateral incomplete cleft lip. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76(12):2612‐2617. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.05.003
60.
MeazziniMCRossettiGMorabitoAGarattiniGBrusatiR. Photometric evaluation of bilateral cleft lip and palate patients after primary columella lengthening. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(1):58‐65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/08-240.1
61.
MandweRSPuriSShinganeSPawarGKolheVRAlsiA. Presurgical nasoalveolar remodeling - an experience in the journey of cleft lip and palate. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2015;7:1‐7. doi:https://doi.org/10.2147/ccide.S70823
62.
LiangZYaoJChenPKTZhengCYangJ. Effect of presurgical nasoalveolar molding on nasal symmetry in unilateral complete cleft lip/palate patients after primary cheiloplasty without concomitant nasal cartilage dissection: early childhood evaluation. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(7):935‐940. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/14-296
63.
ChenZPanXZhaoNChenZShenG. Asymmetric maxillary protraction for unilateral cleft lip and palate patients using finite element analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2015;26(2):388‐392. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000001337
64.
LiaoYFHsiehYJChenIJKoWCChenPK. Comparative outcomes of two nasoalveolar molding techniques for unilateral cleft nose deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(6):1289‐1295. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31826d16f3
65.
ClarkSLTeichgraeberJFFleshmanRG, et al.Long-term treatment outcome of presurgical nasoalveolar molding in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22(1):333‐336. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e318200d874
66.
SasakiHTogashiSKarubeR, et al.Presurgical nasoalveolar molding orthopedic treatment improves the outcome of primary cheiloplasty of unilateral complete cleft lip and palate, as assessed by naris morphology and cleft gap. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23(6):1596‐1601. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825196dc
67.
YuQGongXShenG. CAD Presurgical nasoalveolar molding effects on the maxillary morphology in infants with UCLP. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2013;116(4):418‐426. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2013.06.032
68.
AhmedMKAhsanuddinSRetrouveyJM, et al.Fabrication of nasoalveolar molding devices for the treatment of cleft lip and palate, using stereolithography additive manufacturing processes and computer-aided design manipulation software. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(8):2604‐2608. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000005921
69.
NayakTBonanthayaKParmarRShettyPNRaoDD. A comparative cephalometric study of nasoalveolar molding- and non-nasoalveolar molding-treated bilateral cleft patients at early mixed dentition period. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(5):569‐575. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618802151
70.
BaekSHSonWS. Difference in alveolar molding effect and growth in the cleft segments: 3-dimensional analysis of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102(2):160‐168. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.09.009
71.
BhutianiNTripathiTVermaMBhandariPSRaiP. Assessment of treatment outcome of presurgical nasoalveolar molding in patients with cleft lip and palate and its postsurgical stability. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(6):700‐706. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620906293
KeçikDEnacarA. Effects of nasoalveolar molding therapy on nasal and alveolar morphology in unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(6):2075‐2080. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181be88cf
74.
MariqueoGECArriagadaEEABustosTNavarroSMEspinozaGEE. Effectiveness of nasoalveolar molding in the unilateral cleft lip and cleft palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(6):1522‐1525. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000004724
75.
ThakurSSinghAThakurNSDiwanaVK. Achievement in nasal symmetry after cheiloplasty in unilateral cleft lip and palate infants treated with presurgical nasoalveolar molding. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(3):357‐360. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_46_18
76.
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000001764
77.
CaiDZhengJKuangW, et al.A three-dimensional study of the nasolabial soft tissue symmetry in children with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate using traditional and split-type nasoalveolar molding. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(6):1785‐1789. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000006593
78.
GibsonEPfeifaufKDSkolnickGB, et al.Presurgical orthopedic intervention prior to cleft lip and palate repair: nasoalveolar molding versus passive molding appliance therapy. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(2):486‐491. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000006929
79.
NayakTBonanthayaKParmarRShettyPN. Long-term comparison of the aesthetic outcomes between nasoalveolar molding- and non-nasoalveolar molding-treated patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Plast Reconstr Surg. Published online2021:775E‐784E. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008463
80.
SingerEDaskalogiannakisJRussellKA, et al.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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618766978
81.
WlodarczykJRWolfswinkelEMFahradyanA, et al.Nasoalveolar molding: assessing the burden of care. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(2):574‐577. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000007026
82.
WolffKDGrillFDRitschlLM. Comparative photographic, retrospective analysis of nonsyndromic cleft noses treated with or without NAM. Plast Reconstr Surg. Glob Open. Published online2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003045
83.
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.08.012
84.
KornbluthMCampbellREDaskalogiannakisJ, et al.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):639‐648. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618757367
85.
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0026_nmagva_2.0.co_2
86.
JahanbinAJamalinasabARamazanzadehBAZarchSHHShafaeeHShojaeianR. The effect of immediate versus delayed addition of the nasal stent to the nasoalveolar molding plate on nostrils shape and cleft width in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(6):1633‐1636. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000006582
87.
SinghAThakurSSinghalPDiwanaVKRaniA. A comparative evaluation of efficacy and efficiency of Grayson’s presurgical nasoalveolar molding technique in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate with those treated with Figueroa’s modified technique. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(Suppl 1):s28‐s33. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_820_17
88.
MalihaSGKantarRSGoncharMN, et al.The effects of nasoalveolar molding on nasal proportions at the time of nasal maturity. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. 2021;58(3):284‐289. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620950139
89.
PeanchitlertkajornSMercadoADaskalogiannakisJ, et al.An intercenter comparison of dental arch relationships and craniofacial form including a center using nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(6):821‐829. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/16-018
90.
RubinMSCloustonSAPEsenlikEShetyePRFloresRLGraysonBH. Midface growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with a nasoalveolar molding protocol. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(6):1640‐1643. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000005356
91.
ShayPLGoldsteinJAPaligaJT, et al.A comparative cost analysis of cleft lip adhesion and nasoalveolar molding before formal cleft lip repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(6):1264‐1271. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31829b69fe
92.
SaadMSFataMFaroukA, et al.Early progressive maxillary changes with nasoalveolar molding: randomized controlled clinical trial. JDR clinical and translational research. Published online2019;2380084419887336. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084419887336
93.
BurgazMACakanDGYılmazRBN. Three-dimensional evaluation of alveolar changes induced by nasoalveolar molding in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a case-control study. Korean J Orthod. 2019;49(5):286‐298. doi:https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2019.49.5.286
94.
GongXZhaoJZhengJYuQ. A digital assessment of the maxillary deformity correction in infants with bilateral cleft lip and palate using computer-aided nasoalveolar molding. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(6):1543‐1548. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000003812
95.
El-Ghafour MAAboulhassanMAFayedMMS, et al.Effectiveness of a novel 3D-printed nasoalveolar molding appliance (D-NAM) on improving the maxillary arch dimensions in unilateral cleft lip and palate infants: a randomized controlled trial. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. Published onlineSeptember 10, 2020:1055665620954321. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620954321
96.
BennunRDLangsamAC. Long-term results after using dynamic presurgical nasoalveolar remodeling technique in patients with unilateral and bilateral cleft lips and palates. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(Suppl 1):670‐674. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e318193d5f0
97.
IjazARaffatAIsrarJ. Nasoalveolar molding of bilateral cleft of the lip and palate infants with orthopaedic ring plate. J Pak Med Assoc. 2010;60(7):527‐531.
98.
LiouEJSubramanianMChenPKHuangCS. The progressive changes of nasal symmetry and growth after nasoalveolar molding: a three-year follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(4):858‐864. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000133027.04252.7a
99.
LiouEJSubramanianMChenPK. Progressive changes of columella length and nasal growth after nasoalveolar molding in bilateral cleft patients: a 3-year follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(2):642‐648. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000239600.79638.6f
100.
FunayamaEYamamotoYOyamaA, et al.Comparison of nasal symmetry between presurgical nasal stenting and postsurgical nasal retainer placement in unilateral clefts. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(1):133‐136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000004959
101.
SischoLCloustonSAPhillipsCBroderHL. Caregiver responses to early cleft palate care: a mixed method approach. Health Psychol. 2016;35(5):474‐482. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000262
102.
GanskeIMSanchezKLeE, et al.Time-driven, activity-based costing of presurgical infant orthopedics: a critical component of establishing value of Latham appliance and nasoalveolar molding. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;147(3):444‐454. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007669
103.
PeanchitlertkajornSMercadoADaskalogiannakisJ, et al.An intercenter comparison of nasolabial appearance including a center using nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(5):655‐663. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665618754947
104.
AbhinavBABatraPChander SoodSSharmaKSrivastavaARaghavanS. Comparative study of presurgical infant orthopedics by modified Grayson method and dynacleft with nasal elevators in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate—a clinical prospective study. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. 2021;58(2):189‐201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620948630
105.
YilmazRBNGermeç ÇakanD. Nasolabial morphology following nasoalveolar molding in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(4):1012‐1016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004427
106.
ZuhaibMBonanthayaKParmarRShettyPNSharmaP. Presurgical nasoalveolar moulding in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Indian J Plast Surg. 2016;49(1):42‐52. doi:https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0358.182235
107.
AlfonsoARRamlyEPKantarRS, et al.What is the burden of care of nasoalveolar molding?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(9):1078‐1092. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620929224
108.
PadovanoWMSkolnickGBNaidooSDSnyder-WarwickAKPatelKB. Long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. Published online2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656211009702
109.
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2017.8302
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/02-119.2.1
112.
SitzmanTJCarleACLundbergJN, et al.Marked variation exists among surgeons and hospitals in the use of secondary cleft lip surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(2):198‐207. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665619880056
113.
SitzmanTJMaraCALongREJr, et al.The Americleft project: burden of care from secondary surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3(7):e442. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000415
CraigPDieppePMacintyreSMichieSNazarethIPetticrewM. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical research council guidance. Br Med J. Published onlineSeptember 29, 2008:a1655. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655
116.
SkivingtonKMatthewsLSimpsonSA, et al.A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of medical research council guidance. Br Med J. 2021;374:n2061. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2061
117.
CookJAMcCullochPBlazebyJM, et al.IDEAL Framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage. Br Med J. 2013;346(jun18 3):f2820‐f2820. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2820
118.
ErginaPLBarkunJSMcCullochPCookJAAltmanDG, On behalf of the IDEAL group. IDEAL Framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. Br Med J. 2013;346(jun18 3):f3011‐f3011. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3011
119.
McCullochPAltmanDGCampbellWB, et al.No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. The Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105‐1112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8
120.
McCullochPCookJAAltmanDGHeneghanCDienerMK, On behalf of the IDEAL group. IDEAL Framework for surgical innovation 1: the idea and development stages. Br Med J. 2013;346(jun18 3):f3012‐f3012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3012
121.
PennellCPHirstADCampbellWB, et al.Practical guide to the idea, development and exploration stages of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. British Journal of Surgery. 2016;103(5):607‐615. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10115
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.
