Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate facial changes after Presurgical Naso-Alveolar Molding (PNAM) in unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) patients treated with Modified Grayson Technique and AlignerNAM (with DynaCleft nasal elevator) using a 3D facial scan.
METHODS: Randomised clinical trial.
METHODS: Institutional study. Participants: 20 UCLP patients allocated to two groups (10 patients each).
METHODS: Group A patients underwent PNAM with Modified Grayson Technique and Group B patients underwent AlignerNAM (with DynaCleft nasal elevator). Their 3D facial scans were obtained by using an iOSbased application (Bellus3D FaceApp) mounted on a novel frame. These .stl files were analysed using 3D software (GOM INSPECT) at three-time intervals; before intervention (T0), after intervention (T1) and one month after lip repair surgery (T2).
METHODS: Changes in facial and nasolabial morphology.
RESULTS: Both techniques brought significant improvement in the columellar length, nasal tip projection, columella angle, nasal tip angle and a significant reduction in cleft width. At T1, a statistically significant difference in angular and linear measurements was present in both groups. At T2, no statistically significant difference in linear parameters was observed between the two groups except for the outer lateral height of the non-cleft side, basal lateral height of the non-cleft side, and philtrum width. Similar pattern was observed in angular measurements with no statistically significant difference between the two groups except in nasolabial angle, anterior nasal base triangle III, and anterior nasal root triangle.
CONCLUSIONS: Aligner NAM and Modified Grayson technique are equally effective PNAM methods with similar clinical results in nasolabial morphology after lip repair surgery.
METHODS: Randomised clinical trial.
METHODS: Institutional study. Participants: 20 UCLP patients allocated to two groups (10 patients each).
METHODS: Group A patients underwent PNAM with Modified Grayson Technique and Group B patients underwent AlignerNAM (with DynaCleft nasal elevator). Their 3D facial scans were obtained by using an iOSbased application (Bellus3D FaceApp) mounted on a novel frame. These .stl files were analysed using 3D software (GOM INSPECT) at three-time intervals; before intervention (T0), after intervention (T1) and one month after lip repair surgery (T2).
METHODS: Changes in facial and nasolabial morphology.
RESULTS: Both techniques brought significant improvement in the columellar length, nasal tip projection, columella angle, nasal tip angle and a significant reduction in cleft width. At T1, a statistically significant difference in angular and linear measurements was present in both groups. At T2, no statistically significant difference in linear parameters was observed between the two groups except for the outer lateral height of the non-cleft side, basal lateral height of the non-cleft side, and philtrum width. Similar pattern was observed in angular measurements with no statistically significant difference between the two groups except in nasolabial angle, anterior nasal base triangle III, and anterior nasal root triangle.
CONCLUSIONS: Aligner NAM and Modified Grayson technique are equally effective PNAM methods with similar clinical results in nasolabial morphology after lip repair surgery.
摘要：
目的：使用3D面部扫描评估单侧唇腭裂（UCLP）患者术前鼻-肺泡成型（PNAM）术后的面部变化。
方法：随机临床试验。
方法：机构研究。参与者：20名UCLP患者分为两组（每组10名患者）。
方法：A组患者接受改良Grayson技术PNAM，B组患者接受AlignerNAM（使用DynaCleft鼻升降器）。他们的3D面部扫描是通过使用安装在新颖框架上的基于iOS的应用程序（Bellus3DFaceApp）获得的。这些。stl文件使用3D软件(GOMINSPECT)分三次分析；干预前(T0)，干预后（T1）和嘴唇修复手术后一个月（T2）。
方法：面部和鼻唇沟形态的变化。
结果：两种技术都带来了小柱长度的显着改善，鼻尖突起,小柱角度,鼻尖角度和裂隙宽度显着减少。在T1时，两组的角度和线性测量值都存在统计学上的显着差异。在T2时，除了非裂隙侧的外侧高度外，两组之间的线性参数没有观察到统计学上的显着差异，非裂隙侧的基侧高度，和philtrum宽度。在角度测量中观察到类似的模式，除了鼻唇沟角度外，两组之间没有统计学上的显着差异。前鼻底三角III,和鼻前根三角。
结论：AlignerNAM和改良Grayson技术是同样有效的PNAM方法，在嘴唇修复手术后的鼻唇沟形态中具有相似的临床结果。
方法：随机临床试验。
方法：机构研究。参与者：20名UCLP患者分为两组（每组10名患者）。
方法：A组患者接受改良Grayson技术PNAM，B组患者接受AlignerNAM（使用DynaCleft鼻升降器）。他们的3D面部扫描是通过使用安装在新颖框架上的基于iOS的应用程序（Bellus3DFaceApp）获得的。这些。stl文件使用3D软件(GOMINSPECT)分三次分析；干预前(T0)，干预后（T1）和嘴唇修复手术后一个月（T2）。
方法：面部和鼻唇沟形态的变化。
结果：两种技术都带来了小柱长度的显着改善，鼻尖突起,小柱角度,鼻尖角度和裂隙宽度显着减少。在T1时，两组的角度和线性测量值都存在统计学上的显着差异。在T2时，除了非裂隙侧的外侧高度外，两组之间的线性参数没有观察到统计学上的显着差异，非裂隙侧的基侧高度，和philtrum宽度。在角度测量中观察到类似的模式，除了鼻唇沟角度外，两组之间没有统计学上的显着差异。前鼻底三角III,和鼻前根三角。
结论：AlignerNAM和改良Grayson技术是同样有效的PNAM方法，在嘴唇修复手术后的鼻唇沟形态中具有相似的临床结果。
