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.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
Chang, C. S., Wallace, C. G., Pai, B. C. J., Chiu, Y. T., Hsieh, Y. J., Chen, I. J., Liao, Y. F., Liou, E. J. W., & Chen, P. K. T. (2014). Comparison of two nasoalveolar molding techniques in unilateral complete cleft lip patients: A randomized, prospective, single-blind trial to compare nasal outcomes. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 134(2), 275-282. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000361