Presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO) is done to reduce the size of the cleft defect along with improving the arch alignment and nasolabial aesthetics in patients with cleft lip and palate, leading to an improvement of nasolabial aesthetics allowing for a tidier and more aesthetic reparative procedure and postsurgical scar. Since the 2000s, clear aligners have slowly and steadily treaded their way as an acceptable orthodontic modality, with their usage and acceptability increasing considerably over the past decade. Thus, from the knowledge gathered in its 10 years working with 3-dimensional (3-D) diagnosis, treatment planning, and 3-D Printing services, Compass 3D (Belo Horizonte, Brazil) developed the OrthoAligner NAM system. This case series highlights one of the world’s first documented cases of PSIO treated with a series of clear aligners.

Objective: To compare the effects of presurgical infant orthopedics using 2 different methods, that is, the Dynacleft with Nasal elevator system versus the modified Grayson’s technique in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Design: Prospective comparative cohort study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-eight patients were divided into 2 groups, that is, Group A consisting of 14 patients who underwent correction with DynaCleft with Nasal elevator system and Group B consisting of 14 patients undergoing correction using the modified Grayson technique. Maxillary cast measurements were taken at 2-time intervals (pre- and posttreatment) to assess various parameters using a laser scanning machine (C500 Solutionix) and 3D software (GOM Inspect). Similarly, standardized anterior–posterior and worm’s-eye view photographs using a custom box were taken and imported to Adobe Photoshop CS6 for measurements. Paired t test and independent t test were used to compare intra- and intergroup changes, respectively. Results: The analysis of cast (primary outcome) and photographic (secondary outcome) measurements showed improved nasal asymmetry and alveolar correction in both groups which showed no significant intergroup difference when assessed using the independent t test ( P > .05). Group A showed higher chances (42.8%) of causing a T-shaped defect (due to excessive mesial-inward rotation of the minor segment) when compared to the Group B possibly due to a more controlled molding vector ( P < .05). Conclusion: Both methods proved effective in improving the nasal asymmetry, reducing the alveolar cleft gap, and approximating the lips together; but care must be taken when applying the alveolar molding vector in the Dynacleft system.

No abstract