Impact of Presurgical Nasoalveolar Molding on the Parental Perceptions of Oral Health-related Quality of Life of Children with Cleft Lip and Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The study aimed to examine the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of children with cleft lip and palate who were treated with presurgical nasoalveolar molding (PNAM) and to compare the results to age-and gender-matched controls without cleft lip and palate.Materials and methods: Parents of 51 children with cleft lip and palate who were treated with PNAM were administered a validated Arabic version of the short-form child oral health impact profile (COHIP-SF) and were asked to rate their experience with PNAM.The children with treated cleft lip and palate (study group) were age-and gender-matched to children with no cleft lip and palate (control group).The differences in COHIP-SF domains were compared between groups using the Mann-Whitney U test.Results: The children in the test group had significantly higher COHIP-SF scores than in the test group (p < 0.001).However, there were no significant differences in the oral health (p = 0.532) or the oral function (0.232) domains.There were, however, significant differences in the socioemotional domain (p < 0.001).Most of the parents (86%) of children with cleft lip or palate felt that they would recommend PNAM to other parents.Conclusion: While there are no differences in the oral health and functional domains of OHRQoL, children with cleft lip and palate treated with PNAM have significantly lower scores in the socioemotional domain of OHRQoL when compared to age-and gender-matched controls.Clinical significance: Presurgical nasoalveolar molding does not have any negative impact on the OHRQoL of children with cleft lip and palate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".