Documenting cleft lip and palate morphology prior to surgery is standard care. Presurgical orthopedic treatment also requires a 3D cleft model. Endangering the airway, conventional impressions require additional safety measures and resources. We investigate the implementation and risks of digital impressions for the youngest patients with orofacial clefts. We report a retrospective cohort study of patients with cleft lip and palate, aged up to 6 years, treated at two cleft centers in Europe (Basel (A), Warsaw (B)). We scanned with the Medit i500 (Medit Corp, Seoul, South Korea). Center A for presurgical orthopedics and prior surgery from June 2020 to March 2022. Center B prior surgery from December 2020 to May 2021. Scanning data were analyzed for adverse events and adverse device effects, scanning duration, and number of images according to cleft type and age. We analyzed 342 digital impressions in 190 patients (center A: 71, B: 119). The median age was 8.7 months with a range from the first day of birth (presurgical orthopedics) to six years of life (early alveolar bone grafting). No adverse events or adverse device effects were observed. The median scan duration was 85.5 s for cleft palate and 50 s for cleft lip and nose (IQR 56 s and 39 s, respectively). Digital impressions with intraoral scanners are safe in patients with cleft lip and palate from newborn to preschool age. Given the funding to purchase an intraoral scanner, interfaces to electronic patient records, and point-of-care 3D printing, cleft centers can successfully implement this technology.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of the timing of secondary alveolar bone graft (SABG) on craniofacial morphology in patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). Design: Single-center retrospective assessment of consecutively treated nonsyndromic patients with complete UCLP. Participants: One hundred sixty-seven patients (108 males, 59 females) with complete UCLP in whom the cleft was repaired with 1-stage method at approximately 8 months of age. The age of 128 patients at SABG varied from 1.4 to 11.5 years (SABG group), while 39 patients still awaited SABG at the moment of cephalometric evaluation (no-SABG group). Methods: Craniofacial morphology was assessed on lateral cephalograms taken at 10 years of age (standard deviation = 0.8; range: 7.5-12.3) using linear and angular measurements. T tests and regression models were made to analyze data. Results: Regression models demonstrated that the effect of SABG on the craniofacial morphology was limited—cephalometric variables which were statistically significantly different between SABG and no-SABG groups showed no association with the timing of SABG when (1) age of primary repair of the cleft, (2) age of cephalometric evaluation, (3) cleft side, (4) gender, and (5) operator were controlled for. Only the length of the maxilla (Condylion-point A) was affected—1-year delay of SABG corresponded with an increase in Co-point A distance by 0.52 mm. However, adjusted R ² of the model was 0.11. Conclusions: Our findings cautiously indicate that SABG performed before 8 years of age can have limited negative effect on craniofacial morphology. Nevertheless, our results should be confirmed by cleft centers practicing alternative surgical repairs of the cleft.