Original ArticleEfficacy of two mandibular advancement appliances in the management of snoring and mild-moderate sleep apnea: A cross-over randomized study☆
Introduction
Mandibular advancement appliances (MAA) are indicated in the treatment of snoring and mild-moderate obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) [1], [2]. Although many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of MAA in the management of OSAS [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) is recognized as the “gold standard.” Yet, MAA remain a valid alternative preferred by several subjects [7], [8], [9].
Surprisingly few studies have compared the efficiency of two MAA using the apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) or the respiratory disturbance index (RDI) or even patient or sleep partner satisfaction as outcomes [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Also, most of these studies include a large range of severity, from very mild to highly severe OSAS subjects.
The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and patient/sleep partner satisfaction with two MAA in subjects with mild-moderate RDI (apnea + hypopnea + respiratory effort-related arousal per hour of sleep, RERA). The null hypothesis is that the Klearway is equivalent to the Silencer for the management of OSAS patients. The alternative hypothesis is that one appliance is superior.
Section snippets
Study design, population and inclusion/exclusion criteria
In a prospective, single blind cross-over and randomized study comparing two MAA, sleep and respiratory data were collected over a total of four nights (Fig. 1). The four sleep laboratory polygraphic recording (SLPR) nights were for OSAS diagnosis (N1), baseline (N2) and MAA assessment (N3 and N4). Subjects were enrolled for a six-month period (three months for each MAA arm between June 2004 and October 2006) and a follow-up interview one to two years after N2.
The subjects were recruited from
Results
The final sample of subjects who completed the full sequence comprised five women and 11 men aged 47.9 ± 1.6 years (range 37–60), with a body mass index (BMI) of 28.7 ± 0.8 kg/m2 (range 24–35), and a neck circumference of 39.8 ± 0.8 cm (range 35–49) with a mean RDI at N1 of 9.4 ± 1.1 (range 5–21). It can be noted that there was no significant difference for the BMI and neck circumference from N2 to N3 to N4. Moreover, seven subjects had no medical problems. Of the nine others, six suffered from
Discussion
The present study confirms that both the Klearway and Silencer are effective but similar in their capacity to reduce RDI in a population of subjects with mild-moderate OSAS, previously untreated with CPAP. Moreover, subjects’ sleep quality and quality of life were significantly improved.
The slight but significant advantage of the Silencer needs to be interpreted with caution since the N2 mean RDI baseline index per hour of sleep is low (10 RDI) with a 12% standard error (Table 1). Both
Conclusion
The present results confirm that both types of MAA are indicated in the management of mild-moderate OSAS. Since both MAA decreased RDI and subjective daytime sleepiness in a similar manner, the choice of an oral appliance needs to be weighted giving due consideration to the benefit of RDI reduction (in favor of the Silencer) over benefit of subject compliance (in favor of the Klearway). The long term benefit of a better RDI reduction vs. a better patient compliance needs to be assessed in
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Christiane Manzini, Carmen Remo, Hajar El Alaoui and the whole staff at the Laboratoire de sommeil du Centre de Santé et des Services Sociaux de Chicoutimi (particularly Annie Blackburn, Nadia Michaud, Marie-Christine Duchesne and Claude Fortin) for their technical support and CIHR, FODQ-FRSQ and Ministère des Transport du Québec & Sogedent for their financial support.
References (28)
Comparison of two dental devices for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS)
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
(1997)A randomized crossover study of an oral appliance vs nasal-continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of mild-moderate obstructive sleep apnea
Chest
(1996)- et al.
Compliance with CPAP in elderly patients with OSA
Sleep Med
(2000) CPAP treatment of a population-based sample – what are the benefits and the treatment compliance?
Sleep Med
(2006)Practice parameters for the treatment of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea with oral appliances: an update for 2005
Sleep
(2006)- et al.
Oral appliances for obstructive sleep apnoea
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
(2006) Position paper on the use of mandibular advancement devices in adults with sleep-related breathing disorders: a position paper of the German Society of Dental Sleep Medicine (Deutsche Gesellschaft Zahnaerztliche Schlafmedizin, DGZS)
Sleep Breath
(2007)- et al.
An oral elastic mandibular advancement device for obstructive sleep apnea
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
(2000) Efficacy of a Herbst mandibular advancement device in obstructive sleep apnea
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
(1994)Oral appliances for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea: a review
Sleep
(2006)
Efficacy and co-morbidity of oral appliances in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea: a systematic review
Crit Rev Oral Biol Med
Continuous positive airways pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea in adults
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
A short-term controlled trial of an adjustable oral appliance for the treatment of mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea
Thorax
Oral appliance therapy improves symptoms in obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized, controlled trial
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
Cited by (71)
Mandibular advancement splints for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea
2023, Encyclopedia of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms: Volume 1-6, Second EditionPATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES WHILE MANAGING OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA WITH ORAL APPLIANCES: A SCOPING REVIEW
2023, Journal of Evidence-Based Dental PracticeMandibular advancement device design: A systematic review on outcomes in obstructive sleep apnea treatment
2021, Sleep Medicine ReviewsCitation Excerpt :However, comparison on mandibular protrusion was not clearly described and only drawn on one article. When significant differences on AHI outcomes were observed in bilateral thrust and midline traction appliances a more favorable effect of midline traction design was observed [27,28]. Dropout rate of patients was higher in older patients, probably because it is more difficult for them to accustom to the appliance [29].
Clinical impact of two types of mandibular retention devices - A CAD/CAM design and a traditional design - On upper airway volume in obstructive sleep apnea patients
2021, Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryUse of mandibular advancement devices for the treatment of primary snoring with or without obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): A systematic review
2021, Sleep Medicine ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Studies on patients with OSAS or other SBD used similar scales for outcome evaluation. Eight (44%) studies evaluated snoring using questionnaires involving a VAS [32,35,37–39,42,43,45]; moreover, AHI was employed in nine (50%) studies [31,34,36–38,41,43–45], RDI in one study [33], ESS in 11 (61%) studies [20,31,33,34,36–39,41,43,45], and ODI in four (22%) studies [32,37,38,44]. There were significant improvements indicated by these indices, which is consistent with the AASM recommendations for quality of evidence.
Oral appliances for obstructive sleep apnoea: What can we expect?
2020, Revue des Maladies Respiratoires
- ☆
Conflict of interest: Dr. G.J. Lavigne was a consultant for Respironics, USA and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Canada. The study did not receive financial support from any manufacturer of dental appliances.