Comparative outcomes of two nasoalveolar molding techniques for unilateral cleft nose deformity

Yu Fang Liao, Yuh Jia Hsieh, I. Ju Chen, Wen Ching Ko, Philip Kuo Ting Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Nasoalveolar molding is increasingly being used to treat unilateral cleft nose deformity before primary repair. The Grayson technique starts nasal molding when an alveolar gap is reduced to 5 mm, whereas the Figueroa technique performs nasal and alveolar molding at the same time. The authors investigated the comparative efficacy, efficiency, and incidence of complications of the two techniques. Methods: A blinded, retrospective study was conducted on 63 patients with complete unilateral cleft lip-cleft palate; 31 underwent the Grayson nasoalveolar molding and 32 underwent the Figueroa nasoalveolar molding. Pretreatment and posttreatment facial photographs and clinical charts were used to compare efficacy (nostril height ratio, nostril width ratio, columellar angle), efficiency (molding frequency), and incidence of complications (facial irritation, mucosal ulceration). Results: The Grayson and Figueroa techniques did not differ in treatment efficacy for nostril height ratio (0.86 ± 0.09 versus 0.85 ± 0.09; p > 0.05) and columellar angle (84.0 ± 4.5 degrees versus 85.3 ± 2.6 degrees; p > 0.05). Although the Grayson technique was more effective for reducing nostril width ratio (1.21 ± 0.29 versus 1.27 ± 0.19, p = 0.05), it was less efficient (i.e., required more adjustments) (10.9 ± 2.5 versus 8.8 ± 1.9; p < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of mucosal ulceration (23 percent versus 3 percent; p < 0.05). Conclusions: The two nasoalveolar molding techniques differed in efficacy, efficiency, and incidence of complications in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip-cleft and palate. Understanding these differences may help surgeons and orthodontists improve outcome expectations and consultations with patients families. Clinical Question/Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1289-1295
Number of pages7
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume130
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Nose
Cleft Lip
Incidence
Cleft Palate
Social Adjustment
Referral and Consultation
Retrospective Studies
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Comparative outcomes of two nasoalveolar molding techniques for unilateral cleft nose deformity. / Liao, Yu Fang; Hsieh, Yuh Jia; Chen, I. Ju; Ko, Wen Ching; Chen, Philip Kuo Ting.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 130, No. 6, 01.12.2012, p. 1289-1295.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Liao, Yu Fang ; Hsieh, Yuh Jia ; Chen, I. Ju ; Ko, Wen Ching ; Chen, Philip Kuo Ting. / Comparative outcomes of two nasoalveolar molding techniques for unilateral cleft nose deformity. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2012 ; Vol. 130, No. 6. pp. 1289-1295.
@article{d5bb28fef3194717a3d30d5f7d609391,
title = "Comparative outcomes of two nasoalveolar molding techniques for unilateral cleft nose deformity",
abstract = "Background: Nasoalveolar molding is increasingly being used to treat unilateral cleft nose deformity before primary repair. The Grayson technique starts nasal molding when an alveolar gap is reduced to 5 mm, whereas the Figueroa technique performs nasal and alveolar molding at the same time. The authors investigated the comparative efficacy, efficiency, and incidence of complications of the two techniques. Methods: A blinded, retrospective study was conducted on 63 patients with complete unilateral cleft lip-cleft palate; 31 underwent the Grayson nasoalveolar molding and 32 underwent the Figueroa nasoalveolar molding. Pretreatment and posttreatment facial photographs and clinical charts were used to compare efficacy (nostril height ratio, nostril width ratio, columellar angle), efficiency (molding frequency), and incidence of complications (facial irritation, mucosal ulceration). Results: The Grayson and Figueroa techniques did not differ in treatment efficacy for nostril height ratio (0.86 ± 0.09 versus 0.85 ± 0.09; p > 0.05) and columellar angle (84.0 ± 4.5 degrees versus 85.3 ± 2.6 degrees; p > 0.05). Although the Grayson technique was more effective for reducing nostril width ratio (1.21 ± 0.29 versus 1.27 ± 0.19, p = 0.05), it was less efficient (i.e., required more adjustments) (10.9 ± 2.5 versus 8.8 ± 1.9; p < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of mucosal ulceration (23 percent versus 3 percent; p < 0.05). Conclusions: The two nasoalveolar molding techniques differed in efficacy, efficiency, and incidence of complications in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip-cleft and palate. Understanding these differences may help surgeons and orthodontists improve outcome expectations and consultations with patients families. Clinical Question/Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.",
author = "Liao, {Yu Fang} and Hsieh, {Yuh Jia} and Chen, {I. Ju} and Ko, {Wen Ching} and Chen, {Philip Kuo Ting}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0b013e31826d16f3",
language = "English",
volume = "130",
pages = "1289--1295",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative outcomes of two nasoalveolar molding techniques for unilateral cleft nose deformity

AU - Liao, Yu Fang

AU - Hsieh, Yuh Jia

AU - Chen, I. Ju

AU - Ko, Wen Ching

AU - Chen, Philip Kuo Ting

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - Background: Nasoalveolar molding is increasingly being used to treat unilateral cleft nose deformity before primary repair. The Grayson technique starts nasal molding when an alveolar gap is reduced to 5 mm, whereas the Figueroa technique performs nasal and alveolar molding at the same time. The authors investigated the comparative efficacy, efficiency, and incidence of complications of the two techniques. Methods: A blinded, retrospective study was conducted on 63 patients with complete unilateral cleft lip-cleft palate; 31 underwent the Grayson nasoalveolar molding and 32 underwent the Figueroa nasoalveolar molding. Pretreatment and posttreatment facial photographs and clinical charts were used to compare efficacy (nostril height ratio, nostril width ratio, columellar angle), efficiency (molding frequency), and incidence of complications (facial irritation, mucosal ulceration). Results: The Grayson and Figueroa techniques did not differ in treatment efficacy for nostril height ratio (0.86 ± 0.09 versus 0.85 ± 0.09; p > 0.05) and columellar angle (84.0 ± 4.5 degrees versus 85.3 ± 2.6 degrees; p > 0.05). Although the Grayson technique was more effective for reducing nostril width ratio (1.21 ± 0.29 versus 1.27 ± 0.19, p = 0.05), it was less efficient (i.e., required more adjustments) (10.9 ± 2.5 versus 8.8 ± 1.9; p < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of mucosal ulceration (23 percent versus 3 percent; p < 0.05). Conclusions: The two nasoalveolar molding techniques differed in efficacy, efficiency, and incidence of complications in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip-cleft and palate. Understanding these differences may help surgeons and orthodontists improve outcome expectations and consultations with patients families. Clinical Question/Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.

AB - Background: Nasoalveolar molding is increasingly being used to treat unilateral cleft nose deformity before primary repair. The Grayson technique starts nasal molding when an alveolar gap is reduced to 5 mm, whereas the Figueroa technique performs nasal and alveolar molding at the same time. The authors investigated the comparative efficacy, efficiency, and incidence of complications of the two techniques. Methods: A blinded, retrospective study was conducted on 63 patients with complete unilateral cleft lip-cleft palate; 31 underwent the Grayson nasoalveolar molding and 32 underwent the Figueroa nasoalveolar molding. Pretreatment and posttreatment facial photographs and clinical charts were used to compare efficacy (nostril height ratio, nostril width ratio, columellar angle), efficiency (molding frequency), and incidence of complications (facial irritation, mucosal ulceration). Results: The Grayson and Figueroa techniques did not differ in treatment efficacy for nostril height ratio (0.86 ± 0.09 versus 0.85 ± 0.09; p > 0.05) and columellar angle (84.0 ± 4.5 degrees versus 85.3 ± 2.6 degrees; p > 0.05). Although the Grayson technique was more effective for reducing nostril width ratio (1.21 ± 0.29 versus 1.27 ± 0.19, p = 0.05), it was less efficient (i.e., required more adjustments) (10.9 ± 2.5 versus 8.8 ± 1.9; p < 0.001) and had a higher incidence of mucosal ulceration (23 percent versus 3 percent; p < 0.05). Conclusions: The two nasoalveolar molding techniques differed in efficacy, efficiency, and incidence of complications in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip-cleft and palate. Understanding these differences may help surgeons and orthodontists improve outcome expectations and consultations with patients families. Clinical Question/Level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870899630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870899630&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31826d16f3

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31826d16f3

M3 - Article

C2 - 23190811

AN - SCOPUS:84870899630

VL - 130

SP - 1289

EP - 1295

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 6

ER -