Factors contributing to delay or absence of alveolar bone grafting.

INTRODUCTION: Alveolar bone grafting (ABG) delay can lead to suboptimal outcomes. This study seeks to categorize reasons patients with cleft lip and palate have no record of ABG or who underwent later than typical ABG (≥13 years). METHODS: At a single tertiary care center, a retrospective review was performed of all patients with unilateral, complete cleft lip and palate, born 1998-2005. Database query identified which patients had timely, late, or no record of ABG. The retrospective cohort study was performed to categorize ABG delay or absence of recorded ABG. RESULTS: Of 135 participants, 82 (61%) had timely, 8 (6%) had late, and 45 (33%) had no record of ABG. The primary factor for late ABG was noncompliance or refusal (n = 5 of 8, 63%), comorbidity or medical complexity (n = 1 of 8, 13%), orthodontic unpreparedness (n = 1 of 8, 13%), or inaccurate prior assessment of alveolar sufficiency (n = 1 of 8, 13%). The primary factor for ABG record absence was loss to follow-up (n = 40 of 45, 89%), noncompliance or refusal (n = 3 of 45, 7%), comorbidity or medical complexity (n = 1 of 45, 2%), or orthodontic unpreparedness (n = 1 of 45, 2%). Racial majority (White, Asian) patients received preferred care (timely ABG or medically appropriate absence or delay) at a significantly higher rate (67%) than underrepresented minorities (African American, Hispanic, Native American, other) (35%, P = 0.016). Families with private insurance and those who were self-pay received preferred care at a significantly higher rate (77%) than families with Medicaid (42%) (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The high number of patients lost to follow-up highlights the impact of poor retention on ABG completion. Possible health disparities based on race and insurance status warrant clinical focus.

Presurgical Orthopedic Intervention Prior to Cleft Lip and Palate Repair: Nasoalveolar Molding Versus Passive Molding Appliance Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Nasoalveolar molding (NAM) is a widely used presurgical orthopedic device, despite disputes over its effectiveness. This study compares the outcomes after cleft lip and nose repair in patients who received NAM versus those who underwent passive alveolar molding with lip taping. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who received either NAM (n = 16) or passive molding (n = 10) treatments was conducted. Alveolar gap width was measured on maxillary casts until time of palatoplasty. Nasolabial symmetry was assessed by examining anthropometric ratios on post-operative three-dimensional photographs. Burden of care was evaluated by analyzing the number of patient appointments attended, treatment costs, and caregiver satisfaction surveys. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference existed in alveolar gap at time of initial appointment or palatoplasty, however the gap was smaller in the NAM cohort at time of lip and nose repair. No statistically significant difference existed in postsurgical heminasal width, nostril width, nostril height, labial height or nasal ala projection asymmetry between the NAM and the passive molding cohort. Patients in the NAM group attended more dental appointments and incurred higher treatment costs compared to the passive molding group. Caregivers reported high satisfaction with treatment outcomes in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between NAM and passive molding regarding postsurgical nasolabial appearance and patient satisfaction. Both treatments narrow the alveolar gap. However, NAM places a higher burden of care on families.

Evaluation of Multidisciplinary Team Clinic for Patients With Isolated Cleft Lip.

OBJECTIVE: To report the incidences of secondary lip and nose operations, otolaryngology procedures, speech-language therapy, neurodevelopmental concerns, and dental and orthodontic issues in children with isolated cleft lip to inform multidisciplinary cleft team protocols. SETTING: An American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association-approved team at a tertiary academic children's hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of patients evaluated through longitudinal clinic visits by a multidisciplinary cleft palate and craniofacial team between January 2000 and June 2018. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Children with nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft alveolus (n = 92). RESULTS: Median age at final team visit was 4.9 years (interquartile range: 2.4-8.2 years). Secondary plastic surgery procedures were most common between ages 3 and 5 (135 per 1000 person-years), and the majority of these procedures were minor lip revisions. The rate of tympanostomy tube insertion was highest before age 3 (122 per 1000 person-years). By their final team visit, 88% of patients had normal hearing and 11% had only slight to mild conductive hearing loss. No patients had speech errors attributable to lip abnormalities. Psychological interventions, learning disabilities, and dental or orthodontic concerns were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with isolated cleft lip may not require long-term, longitudinal evaluation by cleft team specialists. Cleft teams should develop limited follow-up protocols for these children to improve resource allocation and promote value-based care in this patient population.

Primer on State Statutory Mandates of Third-Party Orthodontic Coverage for Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Care in the United States.

Provision and timing of orthodontic treatment is a crucial part of comprehensive cleft palate and craniofacial care. Some states statutorily mandate orthodontic coverage for the medically necessary care of cleft palate and craniofacial anomalies. However, application of the medically necessary standard varies broadly. Disputes over medical necessity lead to orthodontic coverage denials and surgical intervention delays. Provider-friendly statutory definitions of medical necessity enable patients and providers to avoid such hurdles. The objective of this study is to evaluate state mandates and highlight language favorable to patients and providers.