Comparison of Two Presurgical Orthopedic Protocols in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Introduction: Sixteen non-syndromic patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate and cleft width greater than 6 mm were evaluated retrospectively to compare 2 presurgical orthopedic protocols at a single center: treatment with a passive orthopedic appliance (POA) in conjunction with the novel Rhinoplasty Appliance System (RAS; Group 1), or treatment with traditional naso-alveolar molding (Group 2). Methods: Photographic and cast records were assessed. Photographic measurements included facial midline to nasal tip angle, cleft width to inter-commissural distance ratio, columellar deviation angle, nostril dimension ratios, and columellar height ratio. Cast measurements included maxillary cleft width, arch width, and anteroposterior length. Results: Both groups (Group 1, n = 7; Group 2; n = 9) showed significant improvements. Cleft width decreased markedly in Group 1 (9.4 ± 2.0 mm → 1.4 ± 0.4 mm) and Group 2 (10.8 ± 2.9 mm → 4.8 ± 1.7 mm). Arch width showed a slight reduction, while anteroposterior arch length increased in both groups. Nasal measurements demonstrated notable improvements: the facial midline–nasal tip angle decreased (Group 1: 25.2° → 8.9°, Group 2: 24.1° → 12.6°), columellar deviation angle increased (Group 1: 39.0° → 72.2°, Group 2: 35.5° → 58.9°), and columellar height ratio increased (Group 1: 0.1 → 0.9, Group 2: 0.2 → 0.7). Nostril symmetry also improved in both groups. Overall, both treatments reduced cleft width and improved nasal form, with slightly greater correction in Group 1. Conclusion: Both protocols reduced cleft width and improved nasal symmetry. Group 1 had a greater reduction of the cleft width and facial midline to nasal tip angle, a greater increase in columellar deviation angle and columellar height ratio, and a greater decrease in the nostril width ratio. While both protocols can improve the form of the lip and nose, the novel RAS, which decouples nasoseptal alignment from alveolar molding, offers potential advantages.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
FACE
Published
2026-09-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/27325016261489823
Primary Topic
Cleft Lip and Palate Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Comparison of Two Presurgical Orthopedic Protocols in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Jordan P. Steinberg, Lesbia Drukteinis, Martha Mejía, Oscar Arevalo et al.
FACE
Cleft Lip and Palate Research
article

Comparison of Two Presurgical Orthopedic Protocols in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate

Jordan P. Steinberg, Lesbia Drukteinis, Martha Mejía, Oscar Arevalo, Katherine Sanchez
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Sixteen non-syndromic patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate and cleft width greater than 6 mm were evaluated retrospectively to compare 2 presurgical orthopedic protocols at a single center: treatment with a passive orthopedic appliance (POA) in conjunction with the novel Rhinoplasty Appliance System (RAS; Group 1), or treatment with traditional naso-alveolar molding (Group 2). Methods: Photographic and cast records were assessed. Photographic measurements included facial midline to nasal tip angle, cleft width to inter-commissural distance ratio, columellar deviation angle, nostril dimension ratios, and columellar height ratio. Cast measurements included maxillary cleft width, arch width, and anteroposterior length. Results: Both groups (Group 1, n = 7; Group 2; n = 9) showed significant improvements. Cleft width decreased markedly in Group 1 (9.4 ± 2.0 mm → 1.4 ± 0.4 mm) and Group 2 (10.8 ± 2.9 mm → 4.8 ± 1.7 mm). Arch width showed a slight reduction, while anteroposterior arch length increased in both groups. Nasal measurements demonstrated notable improvements: the facial midline–nasal tip angle decreased (Group 1: 25.2° → 8.9°, Group 2: 24.1° → 12.6°), columellar deviation angle increased (Group 1: 39.0° → 72.2°, Group 2: 35.5° → 58.9°), and columellar height ratio increased (Group 1: 0.1 → 0.9, Group 2: 0.2 → 0.7). Nostril symmetry also improved in both groups. Overall, both treatments reduced cleft width and improved nasal form, with slightly greater correction in Group 1. Conclusion: Both protocols reduced cleft width and improved nasal symmetry. Group 1 had a greater reduction of the cleft width and facial midline to nasal tip angle, a greater increase in columellar deviation angle and columellar height ratio, and a greater decrease in the nostril width ratio. While both protocols can improve the form of the lip and nose, the novel RAS, which decouples nasoseptal alignment from alveolar molding, offers potential advantages.

FACE
Miami Children's Hospital (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Cleft Lip and Palate Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.