Comparison of two nasoalveolar molding techniques in unilateral complete cleft lip patients

A randomized, prospective, single-blind trial to compare nasal outcomes

Chun Shin Chang, Christopher Glenn Wallace, Betty Chien Jung Pai, Yu Ting Chiu, Yuh Jia Hsieh, I. Ju Chen, Yu Fang Liao, Eric Jen Wein Liou, Philip Kuo Ting Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND:: Nasoalveolar molding became increasingly popular in the 1990s as a means of easing surgery and improving nasal outcomes for cleft lip repairs. In the late 1990s, three orthodontists from our center underwent nasoalveolar molding training: two at the Rush Craniofacial Center, in Chicago; and one at New York University Craniofacial Center. They brought two different nasoalveolar molding techniques back to Chang Gung Craniofacial Center: the modified Figueroa and the modified Grayson techniques. Outcomes following use of these techniques have not previously been compared prospectively. METHODS:: Between May of 2010 and March of 2013, a randomized, prospective, single-blind trial was conducted to compare the number of clinical visits, total costs, complications, and nasal symmetry between the two nasoalveolar molding techniques in 30 patients with unilateral complete cleft lip. RESULTS:: There were no differences between nasoalveolar molding techniques in the number of clinical visits, total costs, nostril height, or nostril area ratio. Preoperatively but after nasoalveolar molding, the nostril width ratio was wider for the Figueroa group than for the Grayson group. Six months after surgical correction, there were no differences in nostril height, nostril width, nasal sill height, or nostril area ratio between nasoalveolar molding methods. Alveolar ulceration occurred more frequently in the Grayson group. CONCLUSIONS:: The modified Grayson technique reduced nostril width more efficiently, but alveolar ulceration was more frequent and no differences in nostril width were found following surgery. Overall, the two nasoalveolar molding techniques produced similar nasal outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, II.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)275-282
Number of pages8
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume134
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cleft Lip
Nose
Nasal Surgical Procedures
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Comparison of two nasoalveolar molding techniques in unilateral complete cleft lip patients : A randomized, prospective, single-blind trial to compare nasal outcomes. / Chang, Chun Shin; Wallace, Christopher Glenn; Pai, Betty Chien Jung; Chiu, Yu Ting; Hsieh, Yuh Jia; Chen, I. Ju; Liao, Yu Fang; Liou, Eric Jen Wein; Chen, Philip Kuo Ting.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 134, No. 2, 01.01.2014, p. 275-282.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chang, Chun Shin ; Wallace, Christopher Glenn ; Pai, Betty Chien Jung ; Chiu, Yu Ting ; Hsieh, Yuh Jia ; Chen, I. Ju ; Liao, Yu Fang ; Liou, Eric Jen Wein ; Chen, Philip Kuo Ting. / Comparison of two nasoalveolar molding techniques in unilateral complete cleft lip patients : A randomized, prospective, single-blind trial to compare nasal outcomes. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2014 ; Vol. 134, No. 2. pp. 275-282.
@article{e3adee537e804df587d56e0c454567a7,
title = "Comparison of two nasoalveolar molding techniques in unilateral complete cleft lip patients: A randomized, prospective, single-blind trial to compare nasal outcomes",
abstract = "BACKGROUND:: Nasoalveolar molding became increasingly popular in the 1990s as a means of easing surgery and improving nasal outcomes for cleft lip repairs. In the late 1990s, three orthodontists from our center underwent nasoalveolar molding training: two at the Rush Craniofacial Center, in Chicago; and one at New York University Craniofacial Center. They brought two different nasoalveolar molding techniques back to Chang Gung Craniofacial Center: the modified Figueroa and the modified Grayson techniques. Outcomes following use of these techniques have not previously been compared prospectively. METHODS:: Between May of 2010 and March of 2013, a randomized, prospective, single-blind trial was conducted to compare the number of clinical visits, total costs, complications, and nasal symmetry between the two nasoalveolar molding techniques in 30 patients with unilateral complete cleft lip. RESULTS:: There were no differences between nasoalveolar molding techniques in the number of clinical visits, total costs, nostril height, or nostril area ratio. Preoperatively but after nasoalveolar molding, the nostril width ratio was wider for the Figueroa group than for the Grayson group. Six months after surgical correction, there were no differences in nostril height, nostril width, nasal sill height, or nostril area ratio between nasoalveolar molding methods. Alveolar ulceration occurred more frequently in the Grayson group. CONCLUSIONS:: The modified Grayson technique reduced nostril width more efficiently, but alveolar ulceration was more frequent and no differences in nostril width were found following surgery. Overall, the two nasoalveolar molding techniques produced similar nasal outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, II.",
author = "Chang, {Chun Shin} and Wallace, {Christopher Glenn} and Pai, {Betty Chien Jung} and Chiu, {Yu Ting} and Hsieh, {Yuh Jia} and Chen, {I. Ju} and Liao, {Yu Fang} and Liou, {Eric Jen Wein} and Chen, {Philip Kuo Ting}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0000000000000361",
language = "English",
volume = "134",
pages = "275--282",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of two nasoalveolar molding techniques in unilateral complete cleft lip patients

T2 - A randomized, prospective, single-blind trial to compare nasal outcomes

AU - Chang, Chun Shin

AU - Wallace, Christopher Glenn

AU - Pai, Betty Chien Jung

AU - Chiu, Yu Ting

AU - Hsieh, Yuh Jia

AU - Chen, I. Ju

AU - Liao, Yu Fang

AU - Liou, Eric Jen Wein

AU - Chen, Philip Kuo Ting

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - BACKGROUND:: Nasoalveolar molding became increasingly popular in the 1990s as a means of easing surgery and improving nasal outcomes for cleft lip repairs. In the late 1990s, three orthodontists from our center underwent nasoalveolar molding training: two at the Rush Craniofacial Center, in Chicago; and one at New York University Craniofacial Center. They brought two different nasoalveolar molding techniques back to Chang Gung Craniofacial Center: the modified Figueroa and the modified Grayson techniques. Outcomes following use of these techniques have not previously been compared prospectively. METHODS:: Between May of 2010 and March of 2013, a randomized, prospective, single-blind trial was conducted to compare the number of clinical visits, total costs, complications, and nasal symmetry between the two nasoalveolar molding techniques in 30 patients with unilateral complete cleft lip. RESULTS:: There were no differences between nasoalveolar molding techniques in the number of clinical visits, total costs, nostril height, or nostril area ratio. Preoperatively but after nasoalveolar molding, the nostril width ratio was wider for the Figueroa group than for the Grayson group. Six months after surgical correction, there were no differences in nostril height, nostril width, nasal sill height, or nostril area ratio between nasoalveolar molding methods. Alveolar ulceration occurred more frequently in the Grayson group. CONCLUSIONS:: The modified Grayson technique reduced nostril width more efficiently, but alveolar ulceration was more frequent and no differences in nostril width were found following surgery. Overall, the two nasoalveolar molding techniques produced similar nasal outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, II.

AB - BACKGROUND:: Nasoalveolar molding became increasingly popular in the 1990s as a means of easing surgery and improving nasal outcomes for cleft lip repairs. In the late 1990s, three orthodontists from our center underwent nasoalveolar molding training: two at the Rush Craniofacial Center, in Chicago; and one at New York University Craniofacial Center. They brought two different nasoalveolar molding techniques back to Chang Gung Craniofacial Center: the modified Figueroa and the modified Grayson techniques. Outcomes following use of these techniques have not previously been compared prospectively. METHODS:: Between May of 2010 and March of 2013, a randomized, prospective, single-blind trial was conducted to compare the number of clinical visits, total costs, complications, and nasal symmetry between the two nasoalveolar molding techniques in 30 patients with unilateral complete cleft lip. RESULTS:: There were no differences between nasoalveolar molding techniques in the number of clinical visits, total costs, nostril height, or nostril area ratio. Preoperatively but after nasoalveolar molding, the nostril width ratio was wider for the Figueroa group than for the Grayson group. Six months after surgical correction, there were no differences in nostril height, nostril width, nasal sill height, or nostril area ratio between nasoalveolar molding methods. Alveolar ulceration occurred more frequently in the Grayson group. CONCLUSIONS:: The modified Grayson technique reduced nostril width more efficiently, but alveolar ulceration was more frequent and no differences in nostril width were found following surgery. Overall, the two nasoalveolar molding techniques produced similar nasal outcomes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, II.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905504001&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84905504001&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000361

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000361

M3 - Article

VL - 134

SP - 275

EP - 282

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 2

ER -