Topic Study Year of publication Study design Cleft Aim of the study Sample size Control group Method assessment Effect of nasal molding Effect of alveolar molding Other outcomes Follow-up Study limit Reason for exclusion
Impacts on surgeries Hsieh et al. [22] 2010 Retrospective study UCLP Effect of gingivoperiosteoplasty on facial growth 62 (NAM + GPP: 26; NAM: 40) - - - - - 5 years - Follow-up exceed 18 months
Dec et al. [23] 2013 Retrospective study UCLP;
BCLP 		Assess if NAM can decrease fistula formation complication after primary repair 178 No control group - NAM may reduce nasolabial fistula formation - - Mean: 11 years;
median: 9 years 		- Follow-up exceed 18 months
Patel et al.
[24] 		2015 Retrospective study UCLP;
BCLP 		Assessment necessity of secondary nasal revision surgery with and without NAM NAM: 172 UCLP, 71 BCLP;
non NAM: 28 UCLP, 5BCLP 		- - NAM:
UCLP: 3%;
non NAM: 21% 		- NAM treatment saves between $491 and $4893 depending on the type of cleft 5 to 14 years - Follow-up exceed 18 months
Aesthetic and functional impacts Maull et al. [25] 1999 Retrospective randomized study UCLP Impact of NAM on long-term nasal shape 20 (presurgical nasal stent: 10; NAM: 10) - - - - - - - Follow-up exceed 18 months
Chang et al. [26] 2010 Retrospective study UCLP Long-term outcome of four different techniques of nasal reconstruction 76 (NAM only: 16; NAM + rhinosplasty: 14; NAM + rhinoplasty + overcorrection: 46) - Two-dimensional photographs NAM + rhino + overcorrection (20%) have best results - - 5 years - Follow-up exceed 18 months
Liou et al. [27] 2004 Case series UCLP Evaluate nasal symmetry with NAM 25 - Two-dimensional photographs Improve nasal symmetry - - 3 years No control group, small study Follow-up exceed 18 months
Barillas et al. [28] 2009 Retrospective study UCLP Long-term outcome of NAM techniques of nasal reconstruction 25 (NAM + surgical correction: 15; surgical correction only: 10) - Casts Lower lateral and medial cartilage is more symmetric in the NAM group - - 9 years - Follow-up exceed 18 months
Bennun et al. [29] 1999 Prospective study UCLP Compare impact on nasal symmetry NAM: 44;
presurgical orthopedics without nasal molding 47 		48 healthy patients - Nasal molding permit better and permanent nasal symmetry - - 6 years - Follow-up exceed 18 months
Socio-economic aspects Pfeifer et al. [30] 2002 Retrospective study UCLP Compare the cost of the financial impact of two treatment approaches 30 (group A: lip repair, nasal repair, alveolar bone graft: 14;
group B: NAM, GPP, lip repair, and primary nasal repair: 16) 		- - - - - - Group A cost: $22,744
Group B cost: $19,745 		Follow-up exceed 18 months
Shay et al. [31] 2015 Retrospective study UCLP;
BCLP 		Compared the relative costs between cleft lip adhesion or NAM NAM: 35;
lip adhesion: 42 		- Comparison of bills - - Mean costs for NAM : $3550.24 ± $667.27.Cleft adhesion costs (hospital and surgical costs): $9370.55 ± $1691.79 - - Follow-up exceed 18 months
Prahl et al. [32] 2008 Prospective two-arm randomized controlled trial in parallel UCLP Acceptance of the treatment by mother in motherhood NAM: 27;
no-NAM: 27 		- Questionnaire No difference between two groups - - Questionnaire completed at 6, 24 and 58 weeks - No-NAM
Hopkins et al.
[33] 		2016 Prospective study CLP Capture parents' lived experiences Mother: 8;
father: 4 		- - - - Education and providing support can substantially improve NAM - - Descriptive study
Previous technique improvments Koya et al.
[34] 		2016 Prospective study with blinded measurements UCLP Compare traditional (Grayson) NAM with modified (Figueroa) NAM - - - - - - - No control group, only 10 patients No control group
Bennun et al. [35] 2006 Cases series UCLP; BCLP Effect of dynamic nasal bumper on nasal symmetry UCLP: 32;
BCLP: 19 		- - Correct nasal deformity - Increase comfort, reduce time needed, - - Method not accurate
CAD/CAM Simanca et al. [17] 2011 Pilot study UCLP Measure of nasal improvement with three-dimensional photographs taken during the NAM treatment 5 None Three-dimensional photographs Increase columellar length on the cleft side and decrease of the nostril floor - Three-dimensional photograph measurement (3dMD photo system) is a reliable technique Until 10 weeks of treatment Small study < 10 patients
Braumann et al. [18] 1999 Pilot study UCLP Assess three-dimensional analysis system to evaluate growth rate 5 None Three-dimensional optical scanner on the casts - - Technique permit to quantify the growth rate 12 months - Not NAM treatment < 10 patients
Yu et al. [19] 2011 Prospective study UCLP Evaluation of CAD and set of appliances made by rapid prototype technique 5 None - Columellar length improved Cleft gap reduce - After NAM treatment Small study < 10 patients
Ritschl et al. [20] 2016 Prospective UCLP Compare traditional NAM with CAD technology 12 (CAD NAM: 6;
traditional NAM: 6) 		- - Similar outcomes - Similar risk of hard and soft tissue complications - - < 10 patients
Loeffelbein et al. [21] 2015 Prospective study UCLP Compare two methods of planning virtual alveolar molding using CAD/CAM: 7 None Measurement on scanned casts - - Freeform method give better results (less - Small study < 10 patients
Yamada et al. [32] 2003 Prospective study UCLP Assess three-dimensional facial and alveolar morphology with a CAD system 15 None Facial and alveolar forms were measured using a three-dimensional optical scanner - Reduction cleft gap Make surgeries easier Before surgical repair - No-NAM

CAD/CAM = computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture; PS = prospective study; RS = retrospective study; CS = case series; UCLP = unilateral cleft lip and/or palate; BCLP = bilateral cleft lip and/or palate; CLP = cleft lip and/or palate; GPP = gingivoperiosteoplasty.