Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Nasal Symmetry Outcomes After Nasoalveolar Molding (NAM) Plus Cheiloplasty Treatment in Babies With Cleft Lip/Palate: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
To investigate the impact of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) treatment after cheiloplasty surgery on the results of nasal symmetry in individuals with cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P).
Design
Systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
Setting
Electronic searches were performed in 6 databases in October 2023. Studies comparing individuals with CL/P undergoing treatment with NAM + cheiloplasty and individuals undergoing cheiloplasty alone were considered. Each selected study was allocated in a table and data were extracted by 2 authors. The risk of bias and meta-analyze were conducted. In total, 416 articles were retrieved and 9 studies were included.
Patients, Participants
Individuals with CL/P who underwent cheiloplasty.
Interventions
NAM treatment.
Main Outcome Measure(s)
Nasal symmetry, clef width, or any.
Results
In the group NAM+ cheiloplasty, there was an increase in nostril height (NH), columellar width, and length (CL) in the short and long term (P < .05). Nostril width (NW) and bialar width (BW) decreased in the short term and increased in the long term in individuals undergoing NAM+ cheiloplasty (P < .05). Six studies exhibited a moderate risk of bias; 3 exhibited a serious risk of bias. The strength of the evidence was very low.
Conclusions
Treatment with NAM+ cheiloplasty positively impacted nasal symmetry with increased NH, NW, and CL in the short and long term. NAM treatment improved NW and BW only in the short term.
GraysonBHSantiagoPEBrechtLECuttingCB. Presurgical nasoalveolar molding in infants with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36(6):486-498.
2.
DunworthKPorras FimbresDTrottaR, et al.Systematic review and critical appraisal of the evidence base for nasoalveolar molding (NAM). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(4):654-677.
3.
MustafaKFatimaSAshithMVGoyalJNVarshiniAAftabA. Treatment modalities to achieve nasal symmetry in unilateral cleft lip/nasal deformity: an objective and comparative evaluation. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2023;22(4):930-937.
4.
KinouchiNHoriuchiSYasueA, et al.Effectiveness of presurgical nasoalveolar molding therapy on unilateral cleft lip nasal deformity. Saudi Med J. 2018;39(2):169-178.
5.
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.
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.
8.
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.
9.
HaddadRSaadehMGennoPAbou ChebelN. Comparison of post-surgical soft tissue changes between bilateral cleft patients treated with and without a modified nasoalveolar molding appliance: a cohort study. Int Orthod. 2023;21(2):100728.
10.
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.
11.
AlqadiSQazaliAAltamimiR, et al.Perception and attitude of parents of children with orofacial clefts regarding the use of presurgical orthopedics and feeding obturators. Cureus. 2023;15(9):e46131.
12.
SantiagoPEGraysonBHCuttingCBGianoutsosMPBrechtLEKwonSM. Reduced need for alveolar bone grafting by presurgical orthopedics and primary gingivoperiosteoplasty. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35(1):77-80.
13.
RauARitschlLMMuckeTWolffKDLoeffelbeinDJ. Nasoalveolar molding in cleft care–experience in 40 patients from a single centre in Germany. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118103.
14.
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.
15.
WlodarczykJRWolfswinkelEMFahradyanA, et al.Nasoalveolar molding: assessing the burden of care. J Craniofac Surg. 2021;32(2):574-577.
16.
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. 2021;148(5):775e-784e.
17.
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.
18.
ThakurSJishadCThakurNSDeepA. Changes in nasal symmetry after presurgical nasoalveolar molding in infants treated with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: a follow-up study. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2022;19:95. eCollection 2022.
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.
21.
ChangSYLonicDPaiBCLoLJ. Primary repair in patients with unilateral complete cleft of lip and primary palate: assessment of outcomes. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;80(2S Suppl 1):S2-S6.
22.
AiharaYYanagawaTSasakiM, et al.Nasal molding prevents relapse of nasal deformity after primary rhinoplasty in patients with unilateral complete cleft lip: an outcomes-based comparative study of palatal plate alone versus nasoalveolar molding. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2022;8(1):197-208.
23.
PuneetBGribelBFAdityaTGarimaA. Clinical efficacy of nasoalveolar moulding using aligner NAM during presurgical infant orthopaedics (PSIO) in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP): a retrospective study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2025;28(3):413-422.
24.
Rossell-PerryPOlivencia-FloresCDelgado-JimenezMPOrmeno-AquinoR. Surgical nasoalveolar molding: a rational treatment for bilateral cleft lip nose and systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020;8(9):e3082.
25.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.
26.
SterneJAHernanMAReevesBC, et al.ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Br Med J.2016;355:i4919.
27.
HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al., eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 6.5, 2024.
28.
SchünemannHBGuyattGOxmanA, eds. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. 2004.
29.
MalihaSGKantarRSGoncharMN, et al.The effects of nasoalveolar molding on nasal proportions at the time of nasal maturity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(3):284-289.
30.
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.
31.
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. 2021;148(5):1075-1084.
32.
HarrisonLMHallacRRDerderianCA. Three-dimensional analysis of bilateral cleft lip and palate nasal deformity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(1):105-113.
33.
LauJIoannidisJPTerrinNSchmidCHOlkinI. The case of the misleading funnel plot. Br Med J.2006;333(7568):597-600.
34.
AbbottMMMearaJG. Nasoalveolar molding in cleft care: is it efficacious?Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(3):659-666.
35.
ChaudhariPKRajasekaranAHaldarP, et al.Treatment outcomes of digital nasoalveolar moulding in infants with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2024;27(Suppl 2):164-182.
36.
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.
37.
Nur YilmazRBGermec CakanD. Nasolabial morphology following nasoalveolar molding in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(4):1012-1016.
38.
PeanchitlertkajornSMercadoADaskalogiannakisJ, et al.An intercenter comparison of nasolabial appearance including a center using nasoalveolar molding. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(5):655-663.
39.
Ruiz-EscolanoMGMartinez-PlazaAFernandez-ValadesR, 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.
40.
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.
41.
SaadMSFataMFaroukA, et al.Early progressive maxillary changes with nasoalveolar molding: randomized controlled clinical trial. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2020;5(4):319-331.
42.
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.
43.
MatsuoKHiroseTTomonoT, et al.Nonsurgical correction of congenital auricular deformities in the early neonate: a preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73(1):38-50.
44.
GraysonBHMaullD. Nasoalveolar molding for infants born with clefts of the lip, alveolus, and palate. Clin Plast Surg. 2004;31(2):149-158, vii.
45.
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.
46.
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.
47.
GraysonBHCuttingCB. Presurgical nasoalveolar orthopedic molding in primary correction of the nose, lip, and alveolus of infants born with unilateral and bilateral clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38(3):193-198.
48.
EuserAMZoccaliCJagerKJDekkerFW. Cohort studies: prospective versus retrospective. Nephron Clin Pract. 2009;113(3):c214-c217.
49.
HoweCJColeSRLauBNapravnikSEronJJJr. Selection bias due to loss to follow up in cohort studies. Epidemiology. 2016;27(1):91-97.
50.
FletcherJ. What is heterogeneity and is it important?Br Med J.2007;334(7584):94-96.
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.
