Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Nasoalveolar molding (NAM) has been glorified and maligned. Supporters argue that NAM improves cleft outcomes and reduces secondary procedures. Critics highlight the expense, labor intensity, and inconsistent or transient results. We offer NAM to our patients and have been doing so for over a decade; nevertheless, our benefits assessments are nuanced. In the following paper, we present our rationale, evolution, technique, and outcomes of NAM, augmented with an analysis of the literature. We offer another perspective in this ever-evolving area of evidence-based cleft palate care.
Jalil et al. (Sun,) studied this question.