Effectiveness of Presurgical Orthopedic Interventions in Infants With Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Cleft Palate Craniofac JNov 10, 2025 (epub)
Clinical ResearchPlastic SurgeryPediatrics

Mrudula Desale, Rigzin Tamchos, Aditi Kapur et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis compared presurgical orthopedic appliances for alveolar segment alignment and nasal morphology in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate. It included 21 studies: 9 randomized controlled trials, 8 prospective studies, and 4 retrospective studies. All techniques were associated with reduced alveolar cleft width and improved columella angle. Grayson’s nasoalveolar molding achieved the greatest reported reduction in alveolar gap width, at -10.00 mm (95% CI -12.22; -7.78), while the Figueroa technique showed the greatest reported improvement in columella angle, at 17.50 degrees (95% CI [6.61, 28.39]).

Key findings

  • Grayson’s nasoalveolar molding had the greatest reduction in alveolar gap width: -10.00 mm (95% CI -12.22; -7.78).
  • The Figueroa technique showed the greatest columella-angle improvement: 17.50 degrees (95% CI [6.61, 28.39]).
  • Dynacleft with Nasal elevator improved columella angle by 15.34 degrees (95% CI (-0.07, 30.75)) from baseline.
  • The review reports that the leading techniques were not statistically different from other techniques.

Why it matters

Presurgical orthopedic appliances are used to address alveolar segment alignment and nasal morphology in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate. This synthesis compares several approaches and identifies techniques with the largest reported changes for each outcome, while indicating that differences between techniques were not statistically significant. The findings help frame the comparative evidence without establishing a clearly superior appliance.

What to keep in mind

The evidence combined randomized and nonrandomized studies, including prospective and retrospective designs, which may limit the certainty of comparisons.

Source

Published in Cleft Palate Craniofac J. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Plastic Surgery

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.