Prospective study of nasal growth in bilateral cleft lip and palate patients after naso-alveolar moulding and primary columella lengthening compared to controls at 5, 10 and 20 years.

INTRODUCTION: A short columella, wide nostrils and a flat nasal tip are common features in patients with bilateral complete cleft lip and palate (BCLP). The objective of this study was to evaluate nasal morphology during growth in patients treated with naso-alveolar moulding (NAM) and primary surgical columella lengthening (PCL) compared with matched non-cleft individuals. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal case-control study. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four consecutively treated BCLP patients at 5 and 10 years and at the end of growth (19.7 ± 2.0 years) were compared through normalized photogrammetry to a control of 34 age and sex-matched non-cleft individuals. Regression Models for Panel Data assessed how nasal measurements were influenced by surgery, age and gender. RESULTS: Nasal protrusion was equal to non-cleft controls at all ages. Length of the columella was also comparable to controls at 5 and 10 years, but significantly shorter at the end of growth. Inter-alar and nasal tip width and nasolabial angle were significantly wider than controls at all ages: More than 60% of the patients have asked for correction of the nasal width, but no early surgery for columella lengthening was needed. CONCLUSIONS: NAM and PCL have provided a nasal projection close to that of non-cleft individuals until adulthood, while length of the columella was physiological at 5 and 10, but shorter than controls at age 20. Width of the nasal tip and width of the alar bases were significantly wider than the controls and eventually required secondary nasal width correction in over two thirds of the sample.

The Use of Clear Aligners in Multi-Segmental Maxillary Surgery: A Case-Control Study in Cleft Lip and Palate and Skeletal Class III Patients.

Background: Maxillary hypoplasia and mandibular asymmetry may be corrected with orthognathic surgery after growth completion. For most stable results, some cases may require segmental Le Fort I osteotomies. Unfortunately, Invisalign's software (6.0 version) still has some inherent limitations in predicting outcomes for complex surgeries. This study explores the potential of aligners, particularly in multiple-piece maxillary osteotomies in both cleft and non-cleft patients. Method: Thirteen patients who underwent pre-surgical treatment with Invisalign were retrospectively matched in terms of diagnosis, surgical procedure, and orthodontic complexity with thirteen patients treated using fixed appliances. Virtual curves following the lower arch were employed to guide the correct pre-surgical positions of the upper teeth with a simple superimposition technique. The amount of impressions required in both groups to achieve satisfactory pre-surgical alignment of the segmented arches was compared. Results: one or no refinement phases were needed in the Invisalign group to reach an acceptable pre-surgical occlusion, while the amount of pre-surgical impressions needed to reach adequate coordination with fixed appliance treatment was slightly higher (p > 0.05). Conclusions: it appears that clear aligner could serve as an effective treatment for individuals necessitating segmental Le Fort I osteotomies when aided by the suggested simple superimposition approach.