Journal Article

A comparative study of two mandibular advancement appliances for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea

Edmund Rose, Richard Staats, Christian Virchow and Irmtrud E. Jonas

in The European Journal of Orthodontics

Published on behalf of European Orthodontics Society

Volume 24, issue 2, pages 191-198
Published in print April 2002 | ISSN: 0141-5387
Published online April 2002 | e-ISSN: 1460-2210 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/24.2.191
A comparative study of two mandibular advancement appliances for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

Mandibular advancement appliances (MAAs) are accepted as a treatment option for snoring and mild obstructive sleep disorders. In the present clinical study two differently designed devices were examined for their effectiveness in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). The study was based on an assessment of 26 patients with a polysomno‐graphic diagnosis of mild OSA [22 men, four women; mean body mass index 27.3 kg/m2 (SD 3.1); mean age 56.8 years (SD 5.2); mean respiratory disturbance index (RDI): 16.0 events/hour (SD 4.4)]. After insertion of the first MAA and a 6–8‐week habituation period, a cardio‐respiratory home‐sleep study was carried out. Following a 2–3‐week period with no treatment, the second appliance was inserted. The sequence of the devices was randomized. Once the patients had become accustomed to the second appliance, another somnographic registration was carried out. Daytime sleepiness, snoring, and sleep quality were assessed subjectively on a visual analogue scale.

The results showed that a statistically significant improvement in the respiratory parameters was achieved with both appliances (P < 0.01). However, the activator [RDI: 5.5 events/hour, SD 3.3; apnoea index (AI): 3.4 events/hour, SD 2.1] was significantly more effective (P < 0.01) than the Silencor® (RDI, 7.3 events/hour, SD 5.3; AI: 5.8 events/hour, SD 3.2). No difference was recorded in the subjective assessment of the therapeutic effects. Both appliances reduced daytime sleepiness and snoring and improved sleep quality, and both influenced the treatment outcome.

Journal Article.  0 words. 

Subjects: Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.