Use of bibloc and monobloc oral appliances in obstructive sleep apnoea: a multicentre, randomized, blinded, parallel-group equivalence trial

Gender differences in oral appliance treatment of obstructive sleep apnea

PURPOSE

Although overall success rates for treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with an oral appliance (OA) are high, they are significantly higher among females. To verify published data, the study's purpose was to evaluate a participant sample after one year of OA use. The primary outcome was treatment response, with responders defined as having an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) < 10 at follow-up and/or reduced by ≥50% of baseline. Secondary measures were from standardized questionnaires.

METHODS

A sample of 314 participants, predominately with moderate-to-severe OSA, were enrolled and instructed to use an OA every night. At baseline and one-year follow-up, polygraphic recordings and questionnaires, including sleepiness (measured using the Epworth sleepiness scale) and quality-of-life (measured using the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire), were collected.

RESULTS

Among the 314 participants, 192 completed the one-year evaluation: 51 females (27%) and 141 males (73%). Overall, OA treatment resulted in 78% and 77% responders among females and males, respectively. Neither the difference in improvement nor the absolute change in AHI differed significantly based on gender, at any OSA severity level. There were no significant gender differences in sleepiness or quality of life. Treatment-related adverse reactions were more common among females.

CONCLUSION

Both females and males with OSA respond well to OA therapy, with nonsignificant gender differences in outcomes. Thus, the hypothesis that females respond better to OA treatment is rejected.

Modified biblock versus monoblock mandibular advancement appliances for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: A randomized controlled trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea represents a serious public health problem. Oral appliances have gained wide acceptance among patients diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea, who should wear them every night. A comfortable oral appliance is mandatory for successful treatment outcomes.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was the assessment of the influence of 2 different designs of the mandibular advancement appliance (MAA), modified biblock and monoblock, for the management of obstructive sleep apnea.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was designed as a prospective 2-arm randomized controlled clinical trial conducted in parallel. Twenty participants (aged 40 ±7.5 years) diagnosed with moderate obstructive sleep apnea were randomly assigned to a control group (n=10), receiving monoblock MAA, and a study group (n=10), receiving modified biblock MAA with elastics. Both appliances were fabricated by using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture (CAD-CAM) technology at different mandibular advancement levels (MALs): 50% and 75% of maximum MAL. A total of 60 cone beam computed tomography scans, 60 overnight full polysomnography sleep tests, 60 STOP-Bang questionnaires, and 40 Usability of Sleep Apnea Equipment-Oral Appliance (USE-OA) questionnaires were collected and analyzed blindly at baseline (initial visit), 50% MAL (3 months), and 75% MAL (6 months). The main outcome measures were the upper airway volume, linear anteroposterior and cross-sectional airway measurements, Apnea Hypopnea Index, Respiratory Disturbance Index, STOP-Bang questionnaire scoring, and USE-OA questionnaire scoring. Nonparametric statistical analysis was performed by using a statistical software program (α=.05). With a beta error accepted of up to 20%, the power of the study was 80%.

RESULTS

At 75% MAL, the percentage change in upper airway volumetric measurements showed a favorable increase: biblock group (115%) and monoblock group (42%), with a statistically significant difference (P=.001). The linear anteroposterior airway measurements and the percentage change in cross-sectional airway measurements were statistically similar: biblock group (80%) and (75%) monoblock group (60%), (54%) (P=.450, P=.151, respectively). The percentage change in the Apnea Hypopnea Index significantly decreased: biblock group (-89%) and monoblock group (-54%) (P<.001). The percentage change in the Respiratory Disturbance Index decreased: biblock group (-78%) and monoblock group (-62%) (P<.023). From the STOP-Bang questionnaire scoring, 100% of both groups showed low risk for obstructive sleep apnea at 75% MAL. From the satisfaction scoring on the USE-OA questionnaire, the biblock group was 100% strong satisfaction and the monoblock group was 50% satisfaction and 50% fairly satisfied.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified biblock MAA with elastics showed significant improvements in patients diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea regarding upper airway measurements and full polysomnography vital parameters when compared with monoblock MAA.

Evaluation of the efficacy of a custom-made monoblock mandibular advancement device in treatment of obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Mandibular advancement devices (MAD) are an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). We aimed to evaluate the efficiency of a custom-made monoblock MAD for the treatment of OSAHS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a monocentric retrospective observational study including patients with OSAHS (mild, moderate or severe) or isolated ronchopathy from January 2005 to March 2023. The primary objective was to evaluate the overall efficiency of the MAD assessed by the percentage of patients successfully treated. The secondary objectives included the global efficiency of the device in the treatment of snoring, the report of side effects, and the identification of predictive factors for efficacy or failure.

RESULTS

The medical records of 586 patients were collected, and 293 patients (229 OSAHS and 64 isolated ronchopathy) were included in the analysis. After a mean 2.9 years follow-up, 72.5 % of patients were successfully treated by MAD. We observed a significant improvement in ronchopathy, both in terms of intensity and percentage of time per night. Regarding patients with isolated ronchopathy, 87.5 % reported an improvement in their symptoms and satisfaction with their treatment. Finally, 14.0 % of the patients declared side-effects, the dentoskeletal modifications being the most frequent (6.1 % of the patients).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the long-term efficacy and good tolerance of a custom-made monoblock orthosis in OSAHS.

Oral appliance influence on jaw function in obstructive sleep apnea

INTRODUCTION

Oral appliance (OA) therapy in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) could be a risk factor for normal jaw function, given the prolonged effect of an OA in keeping the mandible in a protruded position away from a normal position. This study aimed to assess changes in symptoms and clinical findings related to jaw function after 1 year of treating OSA with an OA.

METHODS

In this follow-up clinical trial, 302 patients with OSA were assigned to treatment with either monobloc or bibloc OA. Baseline and 1-year follow-up assessment included using the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale, self-reported symptoms and signs related to jaw function. The clinical examination of jaw function included mandibular mobility, dental occlusion, and tenderness in the temporomandibular joints and masticatory muscles. Descriptive analyses of variables are presented for the per-protocol population. To evaluate differences between the baseline and the 1-year follow-up, paired Student t tests and the McNemar change test was used.

RESULTS

One-hundred and ninety-two patients completed the 1-year follow-up (male 73%, mean aged 55 ± 11 years). There was no change in the Jaw Functional Limitation Scale score at the follow-up (nonsignificant). The patients described no change in symptoms at the follow-up, except for improvements in morning headache (P <0.001) and increased frequency of difficulties in opening the mouth or chewing on awakening (P = 0.002). Subjectively reported changes in dental occlusion during biting/chewing increased significantly at the follow-up (P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

No changes in measurements of jaw mobility, dental occlusion, or pain on palpation of the temporomandibular joints or masticatory muscles were seen at the follow-up. Thus, using an OA in treating OSA had limited influence on jaw functions and related symptoms. Moreover, the risk of developing pain and functional impairment in the masticatory system was infrequent, indicating that this treatment is safe and can be recommended.

Comparative efficacy of mandibular advancement devices in obstructive sleep apnea: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To analyze relative efficacies of mandibular advancement devices (MAD) in sleep apnea treatment.

METHODS

From eligible randomized controlled trials (RCT), MADs were classified based on their mechanistic designs. Data on apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), nadir oxygen saturation (minSaO2), and sleep efficiency (SE%) from RCTs were then analyzed in network meta-analyses, and relative ranking of different MADs was computed based on P scores (a method of ranking similar to SUCRA). Similar analyses were conducted based on the different brands of MADs.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between MADs in any of the outcomes analyzed. However, the P-scores, based on the point estimates and standard errors of the network estimates, ranked some MADs higher than others in some of the outcomes. Of the different mechanistic designs, the highest P scores were achieved for attached midline traction (P score = 0.84) and unattached bilateral interlocking (P score = 0.78) devices for AHI reduction, attached bilateral traction (P score = 0.78) and unattached bilateral interlocking (P score = 0.76) for ESS, monobloc (P score = 0.91) and unattached bilateral interlocking (P score = 0.64) for minSaO2, and unattached bilateral interlocking (P score = 0.82) and attached bilateral traction (P score = 0.77) for SE%. Notable findings in the network meta-analyses based on MAD brands, of the limited number of studies that specified them were the effects of SomnoDent Flex™, TAP™, and IST® in their effects on AHI reduction, with P scores of 0.94, 0.83, and 0.82, respectively. Monobloc decreased supine-AHI the most (- 44.46 [- 62.55; - 26.36], P score = 0.99), and unattached bilateral interlocking had the greatest effect on REM-AHI (- 11.10 [- 17.10; - 5.10], P score = 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study show clinically (but not statistically) significant differences between MADs in terms of their relative efficacy when analyzed for different sleep apnea treatment outcomes and sleep apnea phenotypes.

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES WHILE MANAGING OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA WITH ORAL APPLIANCES: A SCOPING REVIEW

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to describe dental treatment-related patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) while using oral appliances (OAs) to manage obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in children and adults.

METHODS

Available literature that assessed dPROs in children and adults with OSA managed through OAs. Any clinical studies were included without restrictions of year or country. The results were analyzed and reported using narrative text and tables accompanying a descriptive summary.

RESULTS

The searches identified 1718 citations, and of these, forty-five studies were finally included. A total of 3498 adults were included in all 42 primary studies included in this review, in which all the studies presented adults as participants. The dPROs assessed were quality of life (QoL), reported side effects after OA usage, patient satisfaction, and experience with treatment, and subjective perception of occlusal changes after treatment.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review suggests that dPROs are mostly investigated as a secondary outcome from major studies exploring the effects of OAs on OSA severity, and often, dPROs are not well discussed or displayed on their report. As no risk of bias or certainty level assessment was completed, findings need to be carefully considered. Although in general terms management with OAs among adults with OSA does not seem to be uncomfortable or causing major problems to their lives, some mild discomfort and endured occlusal disturbances was reported in some studies. QoL seems to improve but consistent agreement was elusive. Data does not include experiences among those that dropped OA use. No data seems to exist about dPROs in children.

To compare different non-surgical treatment modalities on treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The study aimed to assess the effect of mandibular advancement device (MAD) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea for reduction in 24-h mean blood pressure, sleep quality, Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI), and patient compliance, compared to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), other interventions, or no treatment. Three different databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched using different search terms till July 2021 as per the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After inclusion of studies, data extraction including risk of bias assessment was done. For each study, we used odds ratio, mean difference, and 95% confidence interval to assess and synthesize the outcomes. The quality of evidence was evaluated as per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were included: 497 patients in the MAD group, 239 patients in the CPAP group, and 274 patients in the sham group. In MAD-CPAP comparison, the results favored CPAP in the reduction of AHI of 3.48 (1.76-5.19). However, unclear results were found for sleep quality measured as Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), patient compliance, and 24-h mean blood pressure. In MAD-sham comparison, the results favored MAD in the reduction of AHI of - 8.39 (-10.90--5.88] and ESS of - 0.91 (-1.70--0.12) and favored sham in terms of patient compliance while, unclear results for 24-h mean blood pressure. The GRADE score indicated that the quality of evidence is very low, low, and moderate for different outcomes. CPAP in comparison to MAD and MAD in comparison to sham showed a significant AHI reduction. However, patient compliance and 24-h mean blood pressure were not significantly different in MAD-CPAP or MAD-sham. Quality of evidence is very low and low when MAD was compared with CPAP and sham, respectively, for AHI.

The outcome of oral appliance therapy on position-dependent obstructive sleep apnea: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This multicenter trial on patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treated with an oral appliance aimed to determine the effect of sleeping positions.

METHODS

A cohort of 314 patients with OSA were enrolled and evaluated at 8 weeks and 1 year, focusing on treatment effects. At baseline and the 2 follow-ups, new polygraphic registration comparing the proportion of treatment responders without position-dependent OSA (non-position-dependent OSA [non-POSA]) and with POSA was used.

RESULTS

At the 8-week and 1-year follow-up, 205 and 139 patients were included, respectively. The proportion of responders (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI] <10 and/or ≥50% reduction in AHI) was 56% for the non-POSA group and 69% for the POSA group (not significant [NS]). The responders increased at the 1-year follow-up: 68% and 77% for the non-POSA and POSA groups (NS), respectively. The absolute change in AHI in all sleeping positions at 8 weeks was -12.9 (interquartile range, -25.0 to -0.5) in the non-POSA group and -10.5 (interquartile range, -19.9 to -5.3; NS) in the POSA group. However, the decrease in supine AHI was significantly greater among subjects with POSA. In contrast, the decrease in nonsupine AHI was significantly greater in the non-POSA group, an effect that remained at the 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Our hypothesis that subjects with POSA at baseline would have a higher treatment response rate after oral appliance treatment compared with subjects without POSA was rejected. However, those with POSA had a significantly higher supine AHI decrease, and those without POSA had significantly less nonsupine AHI.

Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of customized maxillary oral appliance with mandibular advancement appliance as a treatment modality for moderate obstructive sleep apnea patients-protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is due to the obstruction of the upper airway during sleep. This condition is often associated with multiple symptoms and co-morbidities. There are many treatment options mentioned in the literature to manage OSA, among which interventional option of continuous positive airflow (CPAP) and non-interventional option, i.e., mandibular advancement device (MAD), which is an oral appliance (OA), are the most preferred ones. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of customized maxillary oral appliances with mandibular advancement devices in moderate OSA patients.

Methods

A prospective interventional study with a randomized controlled trial will be carried out involving 40 participants (sample size), with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) > 15–30, recorded on polysomnography (PSG). Study participants will be randomly divided into the following treatment groups: control group or group subjected to mandibular advancement device (MAD, n=20) and second group subjected to customized maxillary oral appliance (CMOA, n=20). Baseline assessment of apnea/hypopnea index (AHI), oxygen saturation in blood, percentage of rapid eye movement, electroencephalogram, electrocardiogram, oro-nasal airflow via a pressure transducer, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale will be done. Then both study group participants will receive their respective appliances. And after one month and three months of delivery of the appliance, all the parameters, i.e., AHI, oxygen saturation in blood, percentage of rapid eye movement, electroencephalogram, electrocardiogram, oro-nasal airflow via a pressure transducer, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale will be re-evaluated and compared with the baseline measurements. Descriptive and analytical statistics will be done. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) Version 20.1 will be used as statistical software. The statistical significance between the two groups after one month and three months will be evaluated at p< 0.05.

Discussion

We expect, customized maxillary oral appliance to be more efficient in managing moderate OSA, in comparison with MAD. If the hypothesis of the present study is confirmed, then this customized maxillary appliance will be quoted as a “gold standard” for managing moderate OSA.

Trial registration

CTRI/2020/07/026936 Registered 31 July 2020.

Mandibular advancement device design: A systematic review on outcomes in obstructive sleep apnea treatment

Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is often treated with Mandibular Advancement Devices (MADs). It is unclear whether particular design features are superior to others in terms of OSA alleviation. In order to facilitate clinical decision-making, this systematic review summarizes the objective and subjective outcomes of different available MAD designs. Studies comparing different MAD designs in OSA treatment were searched. After screening 1887 titles and abstracts, 20 original RCTs and six cohort studies were included. 14 articles were systematically reviewed in a meta-analysis. The decrease in AHI was significantly different between some of the MAD designs. The clinical relevance of the observed differences was however limited. Monoblock appliances performed more favorable, compared to bilateral thrust (effect size:-0.37; CI:-1.81 to 0.07). Midline traction appliances performed more favorable, compared to other designs. Custom appliances performed more favorable, compared to thermoplastic appliances (effect size:0.86; CI:-0.62 to 2.35). Furthermore, there were no clinically relevant differences between MAD designs in reduction of ESS, compliance, preference, side effects, and cost effectiveness. With respect to the included trials, presently there is not one superior custom MAD design in OSA treatment regarding the effect on AHI reduction, ESS improvement, compliance, preference, side effects, cost effectiveness, and other disease-related outcomes. We confirm custom MAD designs perform superior to thermoplastic MAD designs.

Effectiveness of different mandibular advancement device designs in obstructive sleep apnoea therapy: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta-analysis

Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are used to treat patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). To date, there are no data that identify the most effective MAD design for apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI) reduction. The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of different MAD designs in AHI reduction and oxygen saturation improvement in OSA patients. An electronic search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Database, Scopus, Web of Knowledge and LILACS. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the reduction of AHI on adult patients wearing MAD for OSA were included. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and the risk of bias by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised controlled trial. The success rate of each study was computed: [(mean baseline AHI - mean AHI after treatment)/mean baseline AHI]. Fifty RCTs were included. The risk of bias resulted with some concerns in most of the studies. The GRADE scores indicated that the quality of evidence was very low. The meta-analysis showed a success rate with mono-bloc and duo-bloc MADs respectively of 0.821 [0.722-0.887] and 0.547 [0.443-0.637]. The mono-bloc compared with duo-bloc better improved the minimum oxygen saturation (10.048 [7.733-12.363] and 3.357 [2.290-4.423], respectively). There is a very low quality body of evidence that mono-bloc MADs are more effective in reducing AHI and improving minimum oxygen saturation compared with duo-bloc MADs. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (n. CRD42019118084).

Respiratory outcomes after a 1-year treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea with bibloc versus monobloc oral appliances: a multicentre, randomized equivalence trial

Objective: The benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that these types of appliances would be equally effective.Material and methods: In this multicentre, randomized equivalence trial, patients with OSA received one type of bibloc or one type of monobloc treatment. At baseline, a 1-night polygraphy study was done, and this was repeated after 1 year. The outcome was any change in the apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) and the limits of equivalence between the two devices were set at ±5 AHI units.Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to bibloc and 156 to monobloc appliances. In 88 and 104 patients, respectively, there were significant reductions in the AHI (p < .001) with a mean change of -16.7 (95% CI -19.4 to -14.1) in the bibloc and -11.8 (-14.9 to -8.7) in the monobloc groups. The proportions of responders defined as having an AHI <10 were 68% and 65% for the bibloc and monobloc groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were mild, transient and the dropouts were more frequent in the bibloc group.Conclusions: Both types of treatments positively and significantly reduced respiratory disturbances, but at the 1-year follow-up, they were not significantly different in treating OSA, with a numerically greater reduction of the AHI value with the bibloc appliance. However, the higher proportion of treatment-related adverse events and higher proportion of dropouts among bibloc users should be balanced against the advantage of a greater reduction in the AHI.

[Oral appliances for obstructive sleep apnoea: What can we expect?]

INTRODUCTION

Mandibular appliances are a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnea. There are many designs, but in the literature they tend to be grouped into a single entity without considering that efficiency, tolerance, compliance, or side effects are inherent in the design of each of them. A more detailed literature review is therefore warranted for the reader who wants to understand the relative effectiveness of each appliance.

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

We conducted a literature search using the "oral appliance" and "obstructive sleep apnea" criteria on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane. This allowed us to compare outcome parameters by appliance class and to highlight the rare studies comparing different appliances.

CONCLUSIONS

Mandibular appliances are not a homogeneous entity. Common use includes only appliances designed for propulsion (with rods and jacks) and retention. However, the few comparative studies available do not identify which are the most effective types or the types with an optimal efficacy/tolerance ratio.

PERSPECTIVES

Further appliance comparison studies are needed to determine the most effective type or with an optimal efficacy/tolerance ratio.

A prospective 10-year cephalometric follow-up study of patients with obstructive sleep apnea and snoring who used a mandibular protruding device

INTRODUCTION

This 10-year prospective cephalometric study evaluates the influence of a mandibular protruding device (MPD) in people with obstructive sleep apnea and snoring.

METHODS

A baseline study population of 77 people was followed biennially. After 10 years, 65 people (45 MPD users and 20 stopped-MPD users) were reexamined. At baseline and after 10 years, a lateral cephalogram was taken in the upright position.

RESULTS

MPD users showed significant changes in all cephalometric variables except for maxillary protrusion. The maxillary incisors were retroclined by a mean -4.2° (standard deviation [SD] 3.95; P <0.001), mandibular incisors were proclined by a mean 3.2° (SD, 5.02; P <0.001), and SNB was reduced by a mean -0.6° (SD 1.41; P = 0.01). In those who had stopped MPD use, these initial cephalometric values were retained. Significant changes in decreased overjet and overbite were seen in the MPD group but not in the MPD-stopped group. The length of the mandible (Cd-Pg) increased by a mean of 5.1 mm (SD 6.78; P <0.001) and 6.1 mm (SD 5.99; P <0.001) in MPD and MPD-stopped groups, respectively. The hyoid bone-mandibular plane distance (hy-ML) increased by a mean of 3.3 mm (SD, 2.90; P <0.001) and 3.8 mm (SD 3.67; P = 0.001) in MPD and MPD-stopped groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term nocturnal MPD use causes retroclination of the maxillary incisors and proclination of the mandibular incisors with consequent decreased overjet and overbite. Both MPD and MPD-stopped users obtained increased mandibular length and lower position of the hyoid bone, which can be a normal physiological change with age.

[OSA in adults: Role of the mandibular advancement device (MAD)]

Mandibular advancement devices are an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure for patients with mild or moderate obstructive sleep apnea/ hypopnea syndrome (OSA). Oral appliances advance the mandible and tongue, enlarge and stabilize the upper airways during sleep. Clinical examination is used to select candidates for oral appliances and a particular appliance for a given patient. Titration of the advancement will optimize its effectiveness by resolving subjective clinical symptoms. Polygraphic or ventilatory polysomnography controls the effectiveness of the treatment (IAH reduction, increase of oxygen saturation and improvement of the main symptoms). Clinical follow-up is required to assess longterm outcomes, side effects and treatment adherence. Oral appliances are effective in the short-term provided they achieved a 50% reduction in IAH and complete symptom resolution.