ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2026
In vitro Assessment of Open-Access Digital Workflow for Presurgical Nasoalveolar Molding in Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate digitally fabricated nasoalveolar molding (NAM) prostheses using open-source software against conventionally manufactured prostheses using an in vitro assessment of material mechanical properties, and fabrication efficiency. Materials and Methods: Following IRB approval, a retrospective, in vitro comparative study was conducted using previously obtained, deidentified neonatal maxillary gypsum casts from patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. NAM prostheses were fabricated using either conventional cold-cure acrylic resin or a digital workflow using open-access software (Meshmixer, Autodesk) and stereolithography 3D printing (Formlabs). Surface deviation relative to reference casts, fabrication time, flexural strength, flexural modulus, and microscopic structural analysis of 3D printed resin versus conventional materials were evaluated. Results: Digital NAM prostheses demonstrated significantly (n = 17, p = 0.038) reduced surface cast-based deviation compared to conventional prostheses (mean deviation: 1.53 ± 0.19 mm vs. 1.69 ± 0.25 mm), reflecting nearly 10% improvement in fit relative to the reference cast with the digital method. Materials analysis revealed that 3D-printed resin blocks of standardized testing dimension demonstrated significantly higher flexural strength (n = 7, p < 0.0001) at 67.17 ± 4.8 MPa compared to conventional acrylic blocks at 28.7 ± 3.32 MPa. Flexural modulus was also significantly (n = 7, p < 0.0001) different between groups, with values of 1713 ± 131.6 MPa for 3D printed resin and 797.5 ± 99.0 MPa for conventional acrylic, indicating greater stiffness in the 3D printed resin material. Microscopic analysis revealed a uniform, void-free structure in 3D printed resin blocks in contrast to visible air entrapment in conventional cold-cure acrylic blocks. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in-vitro study using gypsum casts as a reference standard, this work validates a digital workflow for NAM prosthesis fabrication using freely available open-source software (Meshmixer). By providing a reproducible, cost-free workflow, this study offers a practical guide for clinicians initiating digital NAM design and future sequential treatments, supporting wider accessibility and precision in presurgical NAM therapy, particularly in resource-limited settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.