Comparison of Dental Relationship and Craniofacial Development in Children With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Treated With/Without Presurgical Nasoalveolar Molding
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Comparison of Dental Relationship and Craniofacial Development in Children With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Treated With/Without Presurgical Nasoalveolar Molding
To evaluate long-term effects of presurgical nasoalveolar molding (PNAM) on occlusal relationships and craniofacial development in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) using the 5-year-olds’ index and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Design
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting
Tertiary-level Class A specialized stomatological hospital.
Participants
Sixty-four patients with complete UCLP.
Interventions
Thirty patients underwent PNAM treatment, and 34 patients did not.
Main Outcome Measure
CBCT scans were used to assess dental occlusion via the 5-year-old index and to measure craniofacial variables. Intergroup differences were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test and the chi-square test, while the correlation between occlusion and craniofacial variables was examined using the Pearson correlation coefficient. A P value of less than .05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
A comparison of 5-year-olds’ index scores in the two groups showed median scores of 3.0 (PNAM group) and 3.5 (non-PNAM group), respectively, with no significant difference found. For prognosis, no significant difference in orthognathic surgery need was found, but the PNAM group had a higher nonsurgery rate (60%) versus 50% in the non-PNAM group. In craniofacial development, the PNAM group had significantly longer maxillary length; favorable prognosis group showed smaller SNB angles, shorter mandibular body, larger ANB angles, and longer maxillary length. Correlation analysis showed 5-year-olds’ index positively correlated with SNB/mandibular body length, and negatively with ANB/maxillary length.
Conclusions
Early childhood evaluations showed that treatment with/without PNAM in the neonatal period was not a major factor influencing occlusal relationships or craniofacial development in patients with UCLP. Furthermore, correlation between 5-year-olds’ index and skeletal morphology in children with UCLP has been confirmed.
WlodarczykJRMunabiNWolfswinkelE, NagengastE, HiguchEC, TurkM, UrataMM, HammoudehJA, YaoC, MageeWR. Midface growth potential in unoperated clefts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(3):774-778. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000008296
2.
ElabbassyEHSabetNEHassanITElghoulDHElkassabyMA. Bone-anchored maxillary protraction in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Angle Orthod. 2020;90(4):539-547. doi:10.2319/091919-598.1
3.
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:10.1016/j.ijom.2017.03.006
4.
GraysonBHSantiagoPEBrechtLECuttingCB. Presurgical nasoalveolar molding in infants with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36(6):486-498. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1999_036_0486_pnmiiw_2.3.co_2
5.
BatraPTalwarADuggalI. Balancing benefits and risks: analyzing the short-term and long-term effects of presurgical infant orthopedic (PSIO) treatment in UCLP patients. Semin Orthod. 2025;31(5):594-602. doi:10.1053/j.sodo.2025.08.004
6.
HaddadRVSaadehMChebelNAGhafariJG. Potential and limitations of naso-alveolar molding in patients with oral cleft. Semin Orthod. 2025;31(5):603-608. doi:10.1053/j.sodo.2025.09.011
7.
MaulinaIPriedeDLinkevicieneLAkotaI. The influence of early orthodontic treatment on the growth of craniofacial complex in deciduous occlusion of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Stomatologija. 2007;9(3):91-96.
8.
KornbluthMCampbellREDaskalogiannakisJ, RossEJ, GlickPH, RussellKA, DoucetJC, HathawayRR, LongRE Jr, SitzmanTJ. 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:10.1177/1055665618757367
9.
PeanchitlertkajornSMercadoADaskalogiannakisJ, HathawayR, RussellK, SembG, ShawW, LamichaneM, FesslerJ, LongRE Jr. 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:10.1597/16-018
10.
MarsMPlintDAHoustonWJBerglandOSembG. 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.
11.
AtackNHathornIMarsMSandyJ. Study models of 5 year old children as predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19(2):165-170. doi:10.1093/ejo/19.2.165
12.
HathawayRDaskalogiannakisJMercadoA, RussellK, LongRE Jr, CohenM, SembG, ShawW. The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate Part 2. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(3):244-251. doi:10.1597/09-181.1
13.
FudalejPHortis-DzierzbickaMDudkiewiczZSembG. Dental arch relationship in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate following Warsaw (one-stage repair) and Oslo protocols. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(6):648-653. doi:10.1597/09-010.1
14.
MittalTKIrelandAJAtackNE, LearySD, RussellJI, DeaconSA, NessAR, SandyJR. Outcome measures in UCLP: the modified 5-year-olds’-index development and reliability. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(2):248-256. doi:10.1177/1055665618774018
15.
ChawlaODeaconSAAtackNEIrelandAJSandyJR. The 5-year-olds’ index: determining the optimal format for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(6):768-772. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjr096
16.
BongaartsCAKuijpers-JagtmanAMvan THMPrahl-AndersenB. The effect of infant orthopedics on the occlusion of the deciduous dentition in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (Dutchcleft). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(6):633-641. doi:10.1597/03-051.1
17.
DallaserraMPantojaTSalazarJ, ArayaI, YanineN, VillanuevaJ. Effectiveness of pre-surgical orthopedics on patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Stomatol Oral Maxillof Surg. 2022;123(5):e506-e520. doi:10.1016/j.jormas.2022.02.004
18.
ChawlaOAtackNEDeaconSA, LearySD, IrelandAJ, SandyJR. Three-dimensional digital models for rating dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(2):182-186. doi:10.1597/11-283
19.
FowlerPBellardieHShawB, EyresP, SembG, ThompsonJ. Reliability of a categorical scale (GOSLON) and a continuous scale (10-cm visual analog scale) for assessing dental arch relationships using conventional plaster and 3D digital orthodontic study models of children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(1):84-89.
20.
KapilaSDNervinaJM. CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44(1):20140282.
21.
von ElmEAltmanDGEggerM, PocockSJ, GøtzschePC, VandenbrouckeJP; STROBE Initiative. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet (London, England). 2007;370(9596):1453-1457.
22.
AtackNEHathornISSembGDowellTSandyJR. A new index for assessing surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects aged five: reproducibility and validity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997;34(3):242-246.
23.
HaqueSAlamMKKhamisMF. Factors responsible for unfavorable dental arch relationship in non syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2017;41(3):236-242.
24.
ZhengJSunYYangZ, GuoD, RenM, JiangY, YuanW. Comparison of craniomaxillofacial morphology in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with/without presurgical nasoalveolar molding—a retrospective study with a mean age of 5 years. Clin Oral Investig. 2024;28(6):326.
25.
ZhengJHeHKuangWYuanW. Novel three-dimensional coordinate system to analyze alveolar molding effects of pre-surgical nasoalveolar molding on infants with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31(3):653-657.
26.
CaiDZhengJKuangW, LiZ, YuanS, XiongH, YuanW. 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.
27.
FaulFErdfelderELangABuchnerA. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-191.
28.
NovakovaMBrysovaAVokurkovaJ, MarcianP, BorakL, KoskovaO. Impact of early cleft lip and palate surgery on maxillary growth in 5- and 10-year-old patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):1316.
29.
LagravereMOCareyJToogoodRWMajorPW. Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(1):112-116.
30.
[Guideline for cleft lip and palate team approach management]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2024;59(3):221–229
31.
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.
32.
GarlandKMcNeelyBDuboisLMaticD. Systematic review of the long-term effects of presurgical orthopedic devices on patient outcomes. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(2):156-165.
33.
ZuhaibMBonanthayaKParmarRShettyPNSharmaP. Presurgical nasoalveolar moulding in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Indian J Plast Surg. 2016;49(1):42-52.
34.
PadovanoWMSkolnickGBNaidooSDSnyder-WarwickAKPatelKB. Long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(4):462-474.
35.
ClarkSLTeichgraeberJFFleshmanRG, ShawJD, ChavarriaC, KauCH, GatenoJ, XiaJJ. Long-term treatment outcome of presurgical nasoalveolar molding in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22(1):333-336.
36.
ShawWC BrattströmVMølstedK, Prahl-AndersenB, RobertsCT, SembG. The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 5: discussion and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):93-98.
37.
Kuijpers-JagtmanAMLongRE. The influence of surgery and orthopedic treatment on maxillofacial growth and maxillary arch development in patients treated for orofacial clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37(6):527-527.
38.
BongaartsCAPrahl-AndersenBBronkhorstEM, PrahlC, OngkosuwitoEM, BorstlapWA, Kuijpers-JagtmanAM. Infant orthopedics and facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate until six years of age (Dutchcleft). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(6):654-663.
39.
LiJJohnsonCASmithAA, SalmonB, ShiB, BrunskiJ, HelmsJA. Disrupting the intrinsic growth potential of a suture contributes to midfacial hypoplasia. Bone. 2015;81(1):186-195.
40.
Dehesa-SantosAIber-DiazPIglesias-LinaresA. Genetic factors contributing to skeletal class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(4):1587-1612.
41.
OmoriMAMatsumotoMANSegatoRAB, SilvaLABD, FilhoPN, KuchlerEC. The effect of estrogen on craniofacial dimensions: a systematic review. Dent 3000. 2019;7(1):21-26.
42.
HallJG. Importance of muscle movement for normal craniofacial development. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(5):1336-1338.
43.
GordilloPBMartínezLMGarcíaCBMirallesEG. Relationship between nutrition and development of the jaws in children: a pilot study. Children (Basel). 2024;11(2):201.
44.
SuzukiASasaguriMHiuraK, YasunagaA, MitsuyasuT, KubotaY, NinomiyaT, TakenoshitaY. Can occlusal evaluation of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate help determine future maxillofacial morphology?. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(6):696-706.
45.
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.
46.
MaullDJGraysonBHCuttingCB, BrechtLL, BooksteinFL, KhorrambadiD, WebbJA, HurwitzDJ. Long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding on three-dimensional nasal shape in unilateral clefts. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36(5):391-397.
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.
