Effects of nasoalveolar molding on nasolabial aesthetics in patients with cleft lip and palate during pre-adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective studies

• Published in: Orthodontics & craniofacial research 2024-06, Vol.27 (3), p.350-363
• Main Authors: Likitkulthanaporn, Ard, Boonpratham, Supatchai, Honglertnapakul, Yanasinee, Saengfai, Nuntinee Nanthavanich, Chaweewannakorn, Chaiyapol, Jongkhum, Nannapat, Peanchitlertkajorn, Supakit
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescence; Child; Child, Preschool; Cleft Lip - surgery; Cleft Lip - therapy; Cleft lip/palate; Cleft Palate - surgery; Cleft Palate - therapy; Esthetics; Humans; Infant; Lip; Meta-analysis; Nasoalveolar Molding; Nose - abnormalities; Quality control; Retrospective Studies; Rhinoplasty; Systematic review
• ISSN: 1601-6335; 1601-6343
• DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12762

This study aims to analyze long-term effects of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) as a part of cleft primary management protocols on nasolabial aesthetics for patients with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. Six electronic databases and two journals were searched up to July 2023. Studies comparing nasolabial outcomes between NAM and non-NAM protocols were selected for further analysis. Nasolabial aesthetics were the outcome of interest. Data extraction, methodological quality assessment, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis and subgroup analysis were performed. Seven retrospective cohort studies were selected for a qualitative review and four for a quantitative analysis. The risk of bias assessment was moderate for most studies. Only studies utilizing the Asher-McDade rating (AMR) were included for meta-analyses. The protocols with NAM exhibited a significantly lower AMR score for vermillion border than other protocols. AMR scores for nasal form and nasal symmetry from protocols with NAM were significantly lower than protocols without any pre-surgical infant orthopaedics (PSIO) but not significantly different from protocols with other PSIO techniques. The AMR score for nasolabial profile from protocols with NAM was not significantly different from other protocols. However, subgroup analysis demonstrated that protocol combining NAM and primary rhinoplasty significantly lowered AMR scores for nasal form, nasal symmetry and nasolabial profile. For patients with unilateral cleft lip with or without palate (UCLP), this study found that a protocol combining NAM and primary rhinoplasty improved nasolabial outcomes while a protocol with NAM alone offered only limited benefits. For patients with BCLP, the available evidence remains inconclusive. Performing NAM in combination with primary rhinoplasty improves nasolabial aesthetics in patients with UCLP. PROSPERO (CRD4202128384).