PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: The impact of passive alveolar molding vs. nasoalveolar molding on cleft width and other parameters of maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip palate.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Parhofer, R.* ; Rau, A.* ; Strobel, K.* ; Gölz, L.* ; Stark, R.G. ; Ritschl, L.M.* ; Wolff, K.D.* ; Kesting, M.R.* ; Grill, F.D.* ; Seidel, C.L.*

The impact of passive alveolar molding vs. nasoalveolar molding on cleft width and other parameters of maxillary growth in unilateral cleft lip palate.

Clin. Oral Investig. 27, 5001-5009 (2023)

Verlagsversion

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Hybrid

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

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 methods: We 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. Results: Both 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. Conclusions: NAM 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 relevance: The 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.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

3.400

1.516