Midface Growth in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Treated With a Nasoalveolar Molding Protocol:

The Impact of Presurgical Nasoalveolar Molding on Midface Growth in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Nasoalveolar molding (NAM) can optimize aesthetic outcomes in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP), particularly in those with wider clefts. However, its impact on long-term postoperative sequelae such as midface hypoplasia (MFH) remains unclear. This study analyzed cephalometric data to evaluate NAM's effect on MFH in patients with complete unilateral CLP (UCLP).

DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.

PATIENTS

Included studies reported cephalometrics of patients ≥ 7 years old with repaired UCLP who underwent presurgical NAM versus no-NAM (control). Studies of bilateral cases or unoperated clefts were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Main outcomes were cephalometric angles (sella-nasion-A point (SNA), sella-nasion-B point (SNB), and A point-nasion-B point (ANB)) of patients treated with NAM vs. no-NAM.

RESULTS

Of 2063 articles, three met inclusion criteria. Cephalometrics were reported for 171 patients (89 NAM, 82 no-NAM) at an average age of 8.5 ± 0.9 years. On pooled analysis, compared to the no-NAM cohort, the NAM cohort had insignificantly smaller SNA (78.8°±1.5° vs. 76.7°±1.5°, p = 0.169), SNB (75.5°±1.0° vs. 75.5°±1.0°, p = 0.954), and ANB (3.6°±1.4° vs. 1.23°±1.2°, p = 0.089) angles. Upon meta-analysis, compared to the no-NAM cohort, the NAM cohort had significantly smaller SNA (Mean Difference (MD) -1.96 [-3.31 to -0.61], p = 0.005) and ANB angles (MD -2.22 [-3.20 to -1.24], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis revealed that patients with UCLP who underwent presurgical NAM had significantly smaller SNA and ANB angles, possibly indicating worse MFH. Before choosing NAM, clinicians should consider CLP severity, potential sagittal growth restrictions, and feasibility, particularly in low-resource settings.

A multi-centric, single-blinded, randomized, parallel-group study to evaluate the effectiveness of nasoalveolar moulding treatment in non-syndromic patients with complete unilateral cleft lip, alveolus and palate (NAMUC study): a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cleft lip and palate (CLP) are among the most common congenital anomaly that affects up to 33,000 newborns in India every year. Nasoalveolar moulding (NAM) is a non-surgical treatment performed between 0 and 6 months of age to reduce the cleft and improve nasal aesthetics prior to lip surgery. The NAM treatment has been a controversial treatment option with 51% of the cleft teams in Europe, 37% of teams in the USA and 25 of cleft teams in India adopting this methodology. This treatment adds to the already existing high burden of care for these patients. Furthermore, the supporting evidence for this technique is limited with no high-quality long-term clinical trials available on the effectiveness of this treatment.

METHOD

The NAMUC study is an investigator-initiated, multi-centre, single-blinded randomized controlled trial with a parallel group design. The study will compare the effectiveness of NAM treatment provided prior to lip surgery against the no-treatment control group in 274 patients with non-syndromic unilateral complete cleft lip and palate. The primary endpoint of the trial is the nasolabial aesthetics measured using the Asher McDade index at 5 years of age. The secondary outcomes include dentofacial development, speech, hearing, cost-effectiveness, quality of life, patient perception, feeding and intangible benefits. Randomization will be carried out via central online system and stratified based on cleft width, birth weight and clinical trial site.

DISCUSSION

We expect the results from this study on the effectiveness of treatment with NAM appliance in the long term along with the cost-effectiveness evaluation can eliminate the dilemma and differences in clinical care across the globe.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov CTRI/2022/11/047426 (Clinical Trials Registry India). Registered on 18 November 2022. The first patient was recruited on 11 December 2022. CTR India does not pick up on Google search with just the trial number. The following steps have to be carried out to pick up. How to search: ( https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/advsearch.php -use the search boxes by entering the following details: Interventional trial > November 2022 > NAMUC).

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

OBJECTIVES

To three-dimensionally assess differences in craniomaxillofacial skeletal development in patients with operated unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated with/without presurgical nasoalveolar molding (PNAM) with a mean age of 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cone-beam CT radiographs of 30 patients with UCLP who had undergone PNAM and 34 patients with UCLP who did not receive PNAM were analyzed. The data were stored in DICOM file format and were imported into the Dolphin Imaging program for 3D image reconstruction and landmark identification. 33 landmarks, 17 linear and three angular variables representing craniofacial morphology were analyzed and compared by using the Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

The vast majority of linear variables and 3D coordinates of landmark points reflecting craniofacial skeletal symmetry were not significantly different between the two groups. In terms of craniofacial skeletal development, the PNAM group had a significantly smaller anterior nasal spine offset in the midsagittal plane and a greater maxillary length compared to the non-PNAM group.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluations performed in early childhood showed that treatment with/without PNAM in the neonatal period was not a major factor influencing craniomaxillofacial hard tissue development in patients with UCLP; moreover, PNAM treatment showed significant correction of skeletal deviation at the base of the nose.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Follow-up in early childhood has shown that PNAM treatment administered during the neonatal stage does not impede maxillary development and has benefits in correcting nasal floor deviation. It is a viable option for improving nasal deformity in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate.

Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Base for Nasoalveolar Molding (NAM)

OBJECTIVE

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.

Ten-Year Cephalometric Comparison of Patients With Cleft Palate who Received Treatment With Active or Passive Pre-surgical Orthopedic Devices

BACKGROUND

Pre-surgical orthopedic (PSO) devices can be used in the management of patient with cleft lip/palate (CL/P) to narrow the alveolar gap (AG) prior to lip surgery. There are few studies comparing these 2 devices. The objective of this work was to compare the effects of active and passive PSO devices on facial growth in a single surgeon's cohort of patients with CL/P over a 10-year period.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients with CL/P in a single surgeon's practice from 2002 to 2018 was performed. Preoperative measurements of AG size were done using electronic calipers on patient molds. Patient radiographs were taken at 5 and 10 years of age and cephalometric landmarks were plotted using specialized software. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare means for maxillary, mandibular, vertical, and dento-alveolar growth parameters.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with an active device and 23 patients with a passive device were included. No differences were observed in the basic demographic information between the two groups. At the time of lip repair, patients with a passive device had significantly larger horizontal AGs (P < .01), but by the time of palate repair, there was no difference between the two groups (P = .94). There was no significant difference in any growth measurements between the active and passive device groups at 5 and 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite closing the AG more quickly, patients treated with an active device have no significant difference in facial growth at 10 years compared to patients treated with a passive device.

Comparison of Facial Growth between Two Nasoalveolar Molding Techniques in Patients with Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip

BACKGROUND

Nasoalveolar molding (NAM) has become standard treatment in the authors' craniofacial center. There are two types of presurgical NAM: the Grayson and Figueroa techniques. The Grayson method involves active alveolar molding, and the Figueroa method involves passive alveolar molding. The authors previously found no differences in number of clinic visits, costs, or 6-month postoperative outcome between the two techniques. The authors extended the previous study to evaluate facial growth between these two groups.

METHODS

In this randomized single-blind study, conducted between May of 2010 and March of 2013, the authors recruited 30 patients with unilateral complete cleft lip and palate and randomized them for Grayson or Figueroa presurgical NAM. Standard lateral cephalometric measurements at 5 years were used to determine facial growth.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients completed 5 years of follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in facial cephalometric measurements between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Presurgical NAM using either a passive or active NAM technique produced similar facial growth patterns after unilateral cleft lip and palate repair.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Gingivosupraperiosteoplasty following Presurgical Maxillary Orthopedics Is Associated with Normal Midface Growth in Complete Unilateral and Bilateral Cleft Patients at Mixed Dentition

BACKGROUND

Passive orthodontic appliances and gingivosupraperiosteoplasty are adjuncts that can be used by surgeons at the time of primary cleft lip repair. These treatments, along with the surgical technique of cleft lip and palate repair, may impact midface growth. The objective of this study was to describe the authors' protocol for unilateral and bilateral cleft lip repair and to evaluate midfacial growth in a cohort of patients at mixed dentition who had undergone presurgical passive orthodontic appliance therapy and gingivosupraperiosteoplasty at the time of unilateral and bilateral cleft lip repair.

METHODS

Fifteen complete unilateral and 15 complete bilateral cleft lip and palate patients underwent passive orthodontic appliance treatment and primary lip repair with gingivosupraperiosteoplasty. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed by three blinded reviewers. Mean cephalometric measurements at mixed dentition were compared to cephalometric values for noncleft patients, unilateral cleft lip and palate patients who did not undergo gingivoperiosteoplasty or presurgical treatment, and unilateral cleft lip and palate patients who underwent gingivoperiosteoplasty/nasoalveolar molding with independent samples t tests.

RESULTS

Mean cephalometric values were within age-specific normal values for sella-nasion-A point, sella-nasion-B point, A point-nasion-B point, and facial axis. Eighty-seven (13/15) percent of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients and 93 percent (14/15) of bilateral cleft lip and palate patients did not exhibit skeletal class III malocclusion. There was no significant difference between cephalometric values for our patients and patients who did not receive gingivosupraperiosteoplasty or presurgical treatment or who underwent the gingivoperiosteoplasty/nasoalveolar molding protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Presurgical passive orthodontic appliances, combined with gingivosupraperiosteoplasty at the time of lip repair, leads to normal maxillary development in most patients at mixed dentition. Assessment of midface growth at skeletal maturity is required.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Time-Driven, Activity-Based Costing of Presurgical Infant Orthopedics: A Critical Component of Establishing Value of Latham Appliance and Nasoalveolar Molding

BACKGROUND

Value-based health-care reform requires assessment of outcomes and costs of medical interventions. In cleft care, presurgical infant orthopedics is still being evaluated for clinical benefits and risks; however, the cost of these procedures has been largely ignored. This study uses robust accounting methods to quantify the cost of providing two types of presurgical infant orthopedics: Latham appliance treatment and nasoalveolar molding.

METHODS

This is a prospective study of patients with nonsyndromic cleft lip and/or palate who underwent treatment with presurgical infant orthopedics from 2017 to 2019 at two academic centers. Costs were measured using time-driven activity-based costing. Personnel costs, facility costs (operating room, clinic, and inpatient ward), and equipment costs were included. Travel expenses were incorporated as an estimate of direct costs borne by the family, but indirect costs (e.g., time off from work) were not considered.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were treated with Latham appliance treatment and 14 were treated with nasoalveolar molding. For Latham appliance treatment, average total cost was $7553 per patient ($1041 for personnel, $637 for equipment, $4871 for facility, and $1004 for travel over 6.5 visits). Unilateral and bilateral costs were $6891 and $8860, respectively. For nasoalveolar molding, average cost totaled $2541 ($364 for personnel, $151 for equipment, $300 for facility, and $1726 for travel over 13 visits); $2120 for unilateral and $3048 for bilateral treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The major difference in cost is attributable to operative placement of the Latham device. Travel cost for nasoalveolar molding is often higher because of frequent clinical encounters required. Future investigation should focus on whether outcomes achieved by presurgical infant orthopedics justify the $2100 to $8900 expenditure for these adjunctive procedures.

Long-Term Effects of Nasoalveolar Molding in Patients With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

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.

Systematic Review of the Long-Term Effects of Presurgical Orthopedic Devices on Patient Outcomes

Objective:

To perform a systematic review of the literature to identify the long-term effects of presurgical orthopedic (PSO) device use on patient outcomes.

Design:

A comprehensive literature review of Embase and Ovid databases was performed to identify all English-language publications related to unilateral cleft lip and palate, presurgical devices, and patient outcomes. Studies were excluded if they did not report patient outcomes beyond 2 years of age, did not describe the use of a PSO device, were case reports (n < 10), or were purely descriptive studies.

Main Outcome Measures:

Reported patient outcomes following the use of PSO devices.

Results:

Following a review of all articles by 2 independent reviews, 30 articles were selected for inclusion. Overall, there was no reported consensus as to the long-term effects of PSO devices. Furthermore, this study identified that only 10% of published research controlled for confounding factors that could influence the reported results. Confounding factors that were identified included different operating surgeon, different surgical protocols, and different rates of revision surgeries.

Conclusions:

Overall, this systematic review identified 2 important conclusions. Firstly, there is no consensus in the literature about the long-term effects of PSO devices on long-term patient outcomes. Secondly, research in this domain is limited by confounding factors that influence the applicability of the reported results.