Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The impact of passive alveolar molding vs. nasoalveolar molding on cleft width and other parameters of maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip palate
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The impact of passive alveolar molding vs. nasoalveolar molding on cleft width and other parameters of maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip palate
Do you wish to request the book?
The impact of passive alveolar molding vs. nasoalveolar molding on cleft width and other parameters of maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip palate
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The impact of passive alveolar molding vs. nasoalveolar molding on cleft width and other parameters of maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip palate
2023
Overview
Objective Passive alveolar molding (PAM) and nasoalveolar molding (NAM) are established presurgical infant orthodontic (PSIO) therapies for cleft lip palate (CLP) patients. PAM guides maxillary growth with a modified Hotz appliance, while NAM also uses extraoral taping and includes nasal stents. The effects of these techniques on alveolar arch growth have rarely been compared.Material and methodsWe retrospectively compared 3D-scanned maxillary models obtained before and after PSIO from infants with unilateral, non-syndromic CLP treated with PAM (n = 16) versus NAM (n = 13). Nine anatomical points were set digitally by four raters and transversal/sagittal distances and rotations of the maxilla were measured.ResultsBoth appliances reduced the anterior cleft, but NAM percentage wise more. NAM decreased the anterior and medial transversal width compared to PAM, which led to no change. With both appliances, the posterior width increased. The alveolar arch length of the great and small segments and the sagittal length of the maxilla increased with PAM but only partially with NAM. However, NAM induced a significant greater medial rotation of the larger and smaller segment compared to PAM with respect to the lateral angle.ConclusionsNAM and PAM presented some significant differences regarding maxillary growth. While NAM reduced the anterior cleft and effectively rotated the segments medially, PAM allowed more transversal and sagittal growth.Clinical relevanceThe results of this study should be taken into consideration when to decide whether to use PAM or NAM, since they show a different outcome within the first few months. Further studies are necessary regarding long-term differences.
