Correlation between Nasoalveolar Molding and Surgical, Aesthetic, Functional and Socioeconomic Outcomes Following Primary Repair Surgery: a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The authors performed a systematic review to evaluate the potential beneficial effects of the nasoalveolar molding appliance on nonsyndromic unilateral clefts of the lip and/or palate prior to primary lip repair. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was performed using three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science) and three journals ("Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal", "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal" and "American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedic") from January 1980 to April 2017. Data extraction was performed with tables treating different subjects: surgical, aesthetical, functional, socio-economical effects of nasoalveolar molding (NAM) appliances and the evolution of NAM appliances, especially three-dimensional technology. RESULTS: Of the 145 articles retrieved in the literature surveys, 28 were qualified for the final analysis and 20 studies were excluded because of their small sample size (less than 10 patients) and/or too long follow-up (exceeded 18 months). Four randomized controlled trials were available. Although literature allowed discussing the short-term benefits of NAM appliance and the three-dimensional technology, scientific evidence is lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results, nasoalveolar molding appliances have positive surgical, aesthetical, functional and socio-economical effects on unilateral clefts of the lip and/or palate treatment before the primary repair surgeries. Three-dimensional technology results in a more efficient and predictable nasoalveolar molding appliance treatment. However, nasoalveolar molding appliance effect in a short term remains unclear with the available literature. Further studies that integrate three-dimensional technology in a large scale are still needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".