Objectives: Cleft lip and palate is a common congenital anomaly that impairs the aesthetics, speech, hearing, and psychological and social life of an individual. To achieve good aesthetic outcomes, presurgical nasoalveolar molding (NAM) has become important. Currently, the intraoral NAM technique is widely practiced. Numerous modifications have been made to intraoral NAM techniques, but the original problem of compliance leading to discontinuation of treatment remains unsolved. Therefore, the present study compared an extraoral NAM technique with the intraoral NAM technique. Materials and Methods: Twenty infants with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate were included and divided into two equal groups. Group A received the intraoral NAM technique, and Group B received the extraoral NAM technique. Pre- and postoperative extraoral and intraoral measurements were recorded. Results: Groups A and B did not differ significantly in any extraoral or intraoral parameter. Conclusion The extraoral NAM technique is as effective as the intraoral NAM technique in achieving significant nasal and alveolar changes in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Additionally, it reduces the need for frequent hospital visits for activation and the stress associated with the insertion and removal of the intraoral NAM plate, thereby improving compliance.

Objectives: Cleft lip and palate is a common congenital anomaly that impairs the aesthetics, speech, hearing, and psychological and social life of an individual. To achieve good aesthetic outcomes, presurgical nasoalveolar molding (NAM) has become important. Currently, the intraoral NAM technique is widely practiced. Numerous modifications have been made to intraoral NAM techniques, but the original problem of compliance leading to discontinuation of treatment remains unsolved. Therefore, the present study compared an extraoral NAM technique with the intraoral NAM technique. Materials and Methods: Twenty infants with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate were included and divided into two equal groups. Group A received the intraoral NAM technique, and Group B received the extraoral NAM technique. Pre- and postoperative extraoral and intraoral measurements were recorded. Results: Groups A and B did not differ significantly in any extraoral or intraoral parameter. Conclusion The extraoral NAM technique is as effective as the intraoral NAM technique in achieving significant nasal and alveolar changes in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Additionally, it reduces the need for frequent hospital visits for activation and the stress associated with the insertion and removal of the intraoral NAM plate, thereby improving compliance.