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.

Digital nasoalveolar molding through presurgical orthopedics in newborns/infants with cleft lip and palate: A comprehensive review and case study

AIMS

This study aims to provide a comprehensive review and case study about the advantages and disadvantages of the application of digital technologies in presurgical orthopedics in newborns/infants with cleft lip and palate (CLCP). Positive changes in the nasal anatomy, maxillary arch, and cleft width could be achieved.

METHODS

Three representative cases of newborns/infants with CLCP were managed using the presurgical newborn/infant orthopedics (PSIO) approach. The patients were diagnosed and treated. Detailed descriptions of the impression procedures and PSIO appliance construction and placement were provided for each case.

RESULTS

Case 1 utilized traditional impression techniques, Case 2 employed a semi-digitalized approach with intraoral digital scanning, and Case 3 utilized a completely digitalized method for appliance construction. Positive changes in maxillary arch dimensions and cleft width reduction were observed in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of CLCP in newborns and infants poses a complex challenge with profound implications. The PSIO approach not only facilitates reconstructive surgery but also enhances overall quality of life. Digital tools, like specialized optical scanners and 3D printing, revolutionize the PSIO process, making it more efficient and patient-friendly. Clinical benefits include improved facial morphology, esthetics, feeding, speech, and optimized future surgical results. Despite ongoing efficacy debates, global adoption as the initial surgical approach underscores its value. The integration of digital technologies offers new hope for patients and families, promising a brighter future for those affected by this congenital condition.

The Burden of Care of Nasoalveolar Molding: An Institutional Experience

Nasoalveolar molding (NAM) is an early presurgical intervention to facilitate primary cleft lip repair by reducing cleft severity and improving labial and nasal form. However, it continues to be associated with the burden of care that influences access and completion of therapy. The authors, therefore, aim to determine the burden of care of NAM therapy for families seeking treatment at a high-volume urban cleft center. A retrospective study of all patients undergoing primary cleft repair between 2012 and 2020 was performed. Patients were grouped based on whether or not NAM therapy was offered. Variables including physical, psychosocial, and financial factors were assessed. Two hundred and thirty patients underwent primary cleft repair between 2012 and 2020. Of these, 176 patients were indicated for NAM, with 4% discontinuing, and 54 patients did not undergo NAM. The 169 patients who completed NAM had a mean duration of treatment of 13.6±8.8 wks consisting of 15±6 scheduled NAM adjustment visits and 1±1 unscheduled visit made urgently to assess caregiver concerns. The mean travel distance was 28.6±37.1 miles. Eighty-four percent of caregivers were married, and 16% did not have English as a primary language. Though 57% had private insurance, 43% of patients received charity support for their treatment. NAM is a finite presurgical intervention that requires caregivers to participate in patient care for approximately three months of their early life. The decision to pursue NAM should be considered alongside the burden of care for caregivers to complete treatment.

Assessing the Safety of a Novel Neonatal Anesthesia Protocol: A Review of 101 Patients With Early Cleft Lip Repair

PURPOSE

Our study introduces a novel anesthetic protocol for neonates without using volatile agents with the goal to minimize potentially neurotoxic and pro-apoptotic agents. The authors evaluated the short-term safety and efficacy of our anesthetic protocol in patients undergoing early cleft lip repair (ECLR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of ECLR patients who underwent repair before 2.5 months of age within the last 4.3 years was performed. This sample was comprised of 2 groups, those who received either a standard volatile gas-based regimen or a dexmedetomidine-based neonatal anesthetic protocol (DBNAP). Patient demographics, medication dosing, anesthetic time (induction to extubation), major and minor complications, and medication side effects were compared between the 2 cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients underwent ECLR. All patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 or 2. Mean age at surgery was 31 ± 13 days and mean anesthetic time was 179 ± 36 minutes. DBNAP was used in 65 patients while the standard anesthetic protocol was used in 36 patients. Patient weight was significantly lower in the DBNAP group (4.01 ± 0.61 versus 4.38 ± 0.72 kg, P  = 0.007). There were no significant differences between the 2 cohorts when comparing anesthetic time, emergence time, complication rate, or medication side effects.

CONCLUSION

For patients undergoing ECLR, DBNAP is perioperatively equivalent to the anesthetic standard of care, demonstrating no major complications and acceptable rates of minor complications and medication side effects.

Nasoalveolar Molding: Assessing the Burden of Care

ABSTRACT

Over the last 3 years a shift at our institution has taken place in which patients who would have been offered nasoalveolar molding (NAM) as an adjunct to cleft lip repair (repair after 3 months) have instead undergone early cleft lip repair (ECLR) (2-5 weeks of life) without NAM. This study sought to examine the financial and social impact of the transition away from NAM to ECLR. The efficacy of NAM is limited by patient compliance to a rigorous treatment schedule requiring weekly visits for appliance adjustments. Nasoalveolar molding patients required an average of 11 dental visits, accounting for $2132 in indirect lost income per family. Average direct charges for NAM totaled $12,290 for the hospital, physician, and appliance costs. Over the entire study period, the cumulative direct cost of NAM separate from the surgical repair of the lip was $970,910. Following the introduction of ECLR as an alternative to NAM with standard lip repair, NAM usage decreased by 48% and unilateral cleft lip patients undergoing NAM decreased by 86%. Those diverted from NAM to ECLR resulted in a decreased healthcare cost burden of $368,700 ($111,727 per year). In addition to the time burden, the financial burden of NAM is significant. Early cleft lip repair without NAM is more cost effective. Nasoalveolar molding has significantly decreased utilization since the implementation of ECLR. We believe that ECLR, with increased experience, long-term data, and increased awareness, has the potential to decrease the burden of health care costs in the United States.

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.

Interdisciplinary Considerations for Nasolabial Repair During a Global Pandemic

BACKGROUND

At the declaration of the global pandemic on March 11, 2020, many hospitals and institutions developed a tiered framework for the stratification and prioritization of elective surgery. Cleft lip and palate repair was classified as low acuity, and nasoalveolar molding (NAM) clinics were closed. Anticipating the consequences of delayed cleft care and the additional burden this would cause families, we reassessed our risk-stratification and perioperative algorithms. We hypothesized we could safely optimize nasolabial repair without burdening our care systems and without increasing COVID-19-related morbidity/mortality.

METHODS

Our multidisciplinary cleft team reevaluated patient selection to maximize surgical impact. Perioperative protocols were adjusted, and COVID-19 preoperative testing was utilized before nasolabial repair and prior to suture removal under anesthesia.

RESULTS

Early in the pandemic, unilateral cleft repair was prioritized and successfully completed on 9 patients. There were no complications related to COVID-19. Nasoalveolar molding clinic was reopened after total patient volume was significantly decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

We offer an approach for surgical management of nasolabial clefts during a global pandemic. Although guidelines have suggested postponing all cleft care, we found that at our dedicated pediatric hospital with low burden of COVID-19 and adequate resources, we could follow a strategy to safely resume cleft care while decreasing burden on our patients' families and care delivery systems.

What Is the Burden of Care of Nasoalveolar Molding?

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to evaluate nasoalveolar molding (NAM) in the context of burden of care defined as physical, psychosocial, or financial burden on caregivers.

SEARCH METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, 5 databases were searched from inception through December 24, 2019, for keywords and subject headings pertaining to cleft lip and/or palate and NAM.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Clinical studies on NAM with reference to physical (access to care, number of visits, distance traveled), psychosocial (caregiver perceptions, family interactions, breast milk feeding), and financial (direct and indirect costs) burden were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection was performed by 2 independent reviewers.

RESULTS

The search identified 1107 articles and 114 articles remained for qualitative synthesis. Burden of care domains were discussed but not measured in 43% of articles and only 25% assessed burden of care through a primary outcome. Of these, 20 articles reported on physical, 8 articles on psychosocial, and 12 articles on financial burden. Quality of evidence is limited by study design and risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

Nasoalveolar molding has been indiscriminately associated with burden of care in the literature. Although NAM may not be the ideal treatment option for all patients and families, the physical considerations are limited when accounting for the observed psychosocial advantages. Financial burden appears to be offset, but further research is required. Teams should directly assess the impact of this early intervention on the well-being of caregivers and advance strategies that improve access to care.

Evaluation of a Digital Protocol for Pre-Surgical Orthopedic Treatment of Cleft Lip and Palate in Newborn Patients: A Pilot Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, invasiveness and impact on clinical results of a digital oral impression protocol in the pre-surgical orthopedic treatment (PSOT) of newborn cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients undergoing primary alveolar surgical repair. Six patients were divided, according to impression technique used, into a digital (intraoral scanner (IOS)) and a non-digital (tray and putty (T&P)) group. Parents considered IOS impressions to be less invasive, compared to T&P impressions. The clinician that took all the impressions considered the IOS to be less stressful compared to the T&P method. In two T&P patients, the impression was repeated because some important anatomical details were missing, in one case due to patient regurgitation during the first attempt. No impression was repeated, and any adverse event was reported in the IOS group. There were no significant differences between these two protocols in pre-surgical alveolar gap reduction and surgical challenge. The study results indicate that this digital protocol can accelerate the production process of the passive molding plate with an instantaneous transmission of the digital impression to the dental lab, maintaining the same accuracy level and clinical outcomes of classical techniques and reducing the invasiveness of impression taking, avoiding any risk of impression material ingestion or inhalation.