These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A modified nasoalveolar molding technique for correction of unilateral cleft nose deformity.
    Author: Chen YF, Liao YF.
    Journal: J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2015 Dec; 43(10):2100-5. PubMed ID: 26541749.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Traditional Figueroa nasoalveolar molding (NAM) requires weekly or biweekly adjustments to remove acrylic from the palatal plate to narrow the alveolar gap. These frequent adjustments create a burden for patients living far from a hospital. To minimize this burden, we developed a modified NAM technique using simplified lip taping and a passive palatal plate. Herein we present our clinical experience and outcomes using the traditional and modified methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this blinded, retrospective study of 66 patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, 33 received the traditional NAM and 33 received the modified NAM. Pretreatment and posttreatment facial photographs and clinical charts were used to compare efficacy (nostril height ratio, nostril width ratio, columellar angle, nasal base angle), efficiency (molding frequency), incidence of complications (facial irritation, mucosal ulceration), and medical cost. RESULTS: Traditional and modified NAM did not differ in treatment efficacy for nostril height ratio (0.88 ± 0.14 vs. 0.90 ± 0.12), nostril width ratio (2.22 ± 0.39 vs. 2.38 ± 0.50), columellar angle (73.5 ± 9.1 degrees vs. 71.3 ± 11.8 degrees), nasal base angle (5.1 ± 2.4 degrees vs. 5.9 ± 2.7 degrees), or alveolar gap width (2.0 ± 2.0 mm vs. 2.0 ± 1.7 mm) (all p > 0.05). Traditional NAM was less efficient, i.e., required more adjustments (8.6 ± 2.0 vs. 6.7 ± 1.1), and cost more (22016.4 ± 2012.7 New Taiwan dollars vs. 20137.6 ± 1173.4 New Taiwan dollars) (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both NAM techniques similarly improved nasal deformities and reduced alveolar gaps, but the modified technique was more efficient and cost less in terms of insurance reimbursement and supplies (labial tapes).
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]