The Effects of Gingivoperiosteoplasty and Cleft Palate Repair on Facial Growth

BACKGROUND

Gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) can avoid secondary alveolar bone graft in up to 60% of patients. The effects of GPP on maxillary growth are a concern. However, palatoplasty can also negatively impact facial growth. This study quantifies the isolated effects of GPP and cleft palate repair on maxillary growth at the age of mixed dentition.

METHODS

A single-institution, retrospective study of all patients undergoing primary reconstruction for unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (CLA) or cleft lip and palate (CLP) was performed. Study patients had lateral cephalograms at the age of mixed dentition. Patients were stratified into four groups: CLA with GPP (CLA + GPP), CLA without GPP (CLA - GPP), CLP with GPP (CLP + GPP), and CLP without GPP (CLP - GPP). Cephalometric measurements included the following: sella-nasion-point A (SNA), sella-nasion-point B (SNB), and A point-nasion-B point. Landmarks were compared between patient groups and to Eurocleft center D data.

RESULTS

One hundred ten patients met inclusion criteria: seven CLA - GPP, 16 CLA + GPP, 24 CLP - GPP, and 63 CLP + GPP patients. There were no significant differences in SNA, SNB, and A point-nasion-B point between CLA + GPP and CLA - GPP, or between CLP + GPP and CLP - GPP groups. In patients who did not receive GPP, SNA was significantly lower in patients with a cleft palate compared with patients with an intact palate ( P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in SNA or SNB of CLP - GPP or CLP + GPP groups when compared with Eurocleft data.

CONCLUSION

When controlling for the effects of cleft palate repair, GPP does not appear to negatively affect midface growth at the age of mixed dentition.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Base for Nasoalveolar Molding (NAM)

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise the body of scientific literature supporting the risks and efficacy of nasoalveolar molding (NAM), specifically in contrast to alternative methods of presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO) or to treatment without PSIO.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Five outcome domains were considered: nasolabial aesthetics; dentoalveolar relationship; midfacial growth; cost and burden of care; and number of anesthetic events.

DESIGN

MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were queried for articles from the first description of the Grayson-Santiago NAM technique (1993) through December 13, 2021. After the application of inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, selected articles were critically appraised using a systematic framework that included risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools.

RESULTS

A total of 88 studies were included. Level-I and -II evidence showed on par or better approximation and alveolar alignment achieved by NAM compared to other PSIO. Level-II and -III evidence showed improved nasolabial aesthetics compared to other PSIOs. Level-II and -III evidence supported no harm to maxillofacial skeletal growth through age 12. Sparse level-III evidence supported a reduced number of labial or nasal revisions following NAM. Level-II and -III evidence showed NAM requiring upfront cost and frequent appointments but reducing caregiver psychosocial burden and reducing long-term costs compared to select alternatives. Many studies carried a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the overall efficacy of NAM regarding short/mid-term outcomes, with a low risk of negative effects on midfacial growth or dental development. The high risk of bias discovered in many papers underscores the need for robust study design in future research.

Time-Driven, Activity-Based Costing of Presurgical Infant Orthopedics: A Critical Component of Establishing Value of Latham Appliance and Nasoalveolar Molding

BACKGROUND

Value-based health-care reform requires assessment of outcomes and costs of medical interventions. In cleft care, presurgical infant orthopedics is still being evaluated for clinical benefits and risks; however, the cost of these procedures has been largely ignored. This study uses robust accounting methods to quantify the cost of providing two types of presurgical infant orthopedics: Latham appliance treatment and nasoalveolar molding.

METHODS

This is a prospective study of patients with nonsyndromic cleft lip and/or palate who underwent treatment with presurgical infant orthopedics from 2017 to 2019 at two academic centers. Costs were measured using time-driven activity-based costing. Personnel costs, facility costs (operating room, clinic, and inpatient ward), and equipment costs were included. Travel expenses were incorporated as an estimate of direct costs borne by the family, but indirect costs (e.g., time off from work) were not considered.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were treated with Latham appliance treatment and 14 were treated with nasoalveolar molding. For Latham appliance treatment, average total cost was $7553 per patient ($1041 for personnel, $637 for equipment, $4871 for facility, and $1004 for travel over 6.5 visits). Unilateral and bilateral costs were $6891 and $8860, respectively. For nasoalveolar molding, average cost totaled $2541 ($364 for personnel, $151 for equipment, $300 for facility, and $1726 for travel over 13 visits); $2120 for unilateral and $3048 for bilateral treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The major difference in cost is attributable to operative placement of the Latham device. Travel cost for nasoalveolar molding is often higher because of frequent clinical encounters required. Future investigation should focus on whether outcomes achieved by presurgical infant orthopedics justify the $2100 to $8900 expenditure for these adjunctive procedures.

The Nasoalveolar Molding Cleft Protocol: Long-Term Treatment Outcomes from Birth to Facial Maturity

BACKGROUND

The authors present outcomes analysis of the nasoalveolar molding treatment protocol in patients with a cleft followed from birth to facial maturity.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective review was conducted of cleft patients who underwent nasoalveolar molding between 1990 and 2000. Collected data included surgical and orthodontic outcomes and incidence of gingivoperiosteoplasty, alveolar bone grafting, surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency, palatal fistula repair, orthognathic surgery, nose and/or lip revision, and facial growth.

RESULTS

One hundred seven patients met inclusion criteria (69 with unilateral and 38 with bilateral cleft lip and palate). Eighty-five percent (91 of 107) underwent gingivoperiosteoplasty (unilateral: 78 percent, 54 of 69; bilateral: 97 percent, 37 of 38). Of those patients, 57 percent (52 of 91) did not require alveolar bone grafting (unilateral: 59 percent, 32 of 54; bilateral: 54 percent, 20 of 37). Twelve percent (13 of 107) of all study patients underwent revision surgery to the lip and/or nose before facial maturity (unilateral: 9 percent, six of 69; bilateral: 18 percent, seven of 38). Nineteen percent (20 of 107) did not require a revision surgery, alveolar bone grafting, or orthognathic surgery (unilateral: 20 percent, 14 of 69; bilateral: 16 percent, six of 38). Cephalometric analysis was performed on all patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. No significant statistical difference was found in maxillary position or facial proportion. Average age at last follow-up was 20 years (range, 15 years 4 months to 26 years 10 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Nasoalveolar molding demonstrates a low rate of soft-tissue revision and alveolar bone grafting, and a low number of total operations per patient from birth to facial maturity. Facial growth analysis at facial maturity in patients who underwent gingivoperiosteoplasty and nasoalveolar molding suggests that this proposal may not hinder midface growth.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Comparative Photographic, Retrospective Analysis of Nonsyndromic Cleft Noses Treated with or without NAM

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Long-term results and efficacy of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) on the perinasal region are reported controversially in the literature. With this study, we demonstrate our experiences, contribute to the ongoing discussion, and describe our decision-making when NAM is indicated or not.

Methods:

Conventional pre- and postinterventional photographs of patients with nonsyndromic unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP and BCLP) were analyzed. The 2 independent raters were blinded to therapy (NAM versus non-NAM), and 7 parameters were measured. Intraclass correlation coefficient for intra- and interrater reliability was calculated. The Mann–Whitney U test was performed to compare therapy- and appearance-matched pairs. Finally, 30 specialists in cranio-maxillofacial surgery performed a subjective, blinded rating of matched NAM and non-NAM cases.

Results:

Thirty-six patients, 16 UCLP and 20 BCLP, were enrolled. The intraclass correlation coefficients for intra- and interrater reliability were excellent for all measurements, except for nasal sill (0.77 intrarater and 0.80 interrater). Height-to-width ratio (P = 0.012) was significantly different in the comparison of non-NAM and NAM-treated severe cases with UCLP. Thirty blinded raters evaluated NAM-treated cases with severe UCLP better than matched non-NAM cases. Non-NAM-treated cases with moderate UCLP and BCLP were rated better than matched NAM cases.

Conclusions:

Children with severe UCLP may benefit from NAM therapy in the sense of better symmetry and a more homogenous appearance. Patients with moderate UCLP and BCLP did not benefit, and the risk of the burden of care increased.

Orthodontic premaxillary setback versus premaxillary osteotomy with gingivoperiosteoplasty for Bilateral cleft lip and palate patients: 4-year observation outcomes

Patients with bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) generally require several stages of treatment, and adequate maxillary development without orthognathic surgery is not easy to achieve. The purpose of this study was to determine short-term outcomes of orthodontic premaxillary setback (OPS) and premaxillary osteotomy (PO) for complete BCLP treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-six patients with BCLP were consecutively treated for 4 years by a single surgeon. All patients were categorized by three indications for the first operation: OPS1, cheiloplasty + gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) + palatoplasty; OPS2, cheiloplasty + GPP; and PO, cheiloplasty + GPP + PO. Cephalograms for maxillary growth and velopharyngeal function (VPF) were judged at 4 years old, before orthodontic treatment.

RESULTS

OPS1 was performed in 14 cases, OPS2 in 8 cases, and PO in 4 cases. As for cephalometric analysis at 4 years old, no significant differences between groups were seen in any cephalometric measurements. As for speech outcomes, assessment of VPF at 80.8±14.8 months was good in 17 cases, slightly impaired in 8 cases, and marginally impaired in 1 case, with no severely impaired cases.

DISCUSSION

No significant differences in maxillary growth or speech outcomes were seen between OPS1, OPS2, and PO groups at 4 years old, possibly because all groups showed the same position of the premaxilla after the first operation.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in maxillary growth or speech outcomes were seen for 26 patients with BCLP between OPS1, OPS2, and PO groups at 4 years old. However, the long-term growth characteristics remain unclear.