Objective : To compare nasoalveolar molding (NAM) effect employing a nasal elevator plus DynaCleft® and NAM-Grayson system in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Method : Prospective study in two groups. Group A included 20 consecutive patients treated with DynaCleft® and a nasal elevator before lip surgery. Group B included 20 patients treated with NAM-Grayson system. Maxillary casts and standard view photographs were done before and after treatment. Columella deviation angle, soft tissue distance of the cleft, intercommisural distance, and nostril height and width were traced and measured on the printed photos; a ratio was obtained and compared before and after treatment. Cleft width, anterior width, and anteroposterior distances were measured on the maxillary cast. Results : Group A began treatment at an average age of 14.3 days and group B at an average age of 16.9 days; no complications were observed. For group A, the initial average alveolar cleft within the cast was 10.7 mm, and after treatment it was 6.6 mm. For group B, pretreatment width was 11.2 mm, and after treatment it was 5.9 mm. No differences were found on the anterior and posterior width, and A-P distance of both groups. The initial mean columellar angle in group A was 38.1°, and after treatment it was 61.5°; for group B the initial mean columellar angle was 33.6°, and after treatment it was 59.5°. Results of Mann-Whitney U and Student's t tests showed no differences (P > .05). Width and height dimensions of the nostril showed minor differences. Conclusions : Both methods significantly reduced the cleft width and improved the nasal asymmetry. Our findings show that both methods produced similar results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.