Trial reportSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2014
A randomized crossover study comparing two mandibular repositioning appliances for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.
Trial report in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Angle class II correction: stepwise mandibular advancement or bite jumping? : A systematic review and meta-analysis of skeletal, dental and condylar effects.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2020Pooled it
- The Efficacy of Device Designs (Mono-block or Bi-block) in Oral Appliance Therapy for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Pooled it
- To compare different non-surgical treatment modalities on treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic SocietyPooled it
- An oral appliance with or without elastic bands to control mouth opening during sleep-a randomized pilot study.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2016Trial
- Diagnostic and Therapeutic Indications of Different Types of Mandibular Advancement Design for Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: Indications from Literature Review and Case Descriptions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Indications for Dental Specialists for Treating Obstructive Sleep Apnea with Mandibular Advancement Devices: A Narrative Review.International journal of dentistry · 2024Review
- Comparative efficacy of mandibular advancement devices in obstructive sleep apnea: a network meta-analysis.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2023Article
- Obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome: relationship with obesity and management in obese patients.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2021Review
- Obstructive sleep apnea in adults.Dental press journal of orthodontics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to determine whether treatment outcomes vary according to the design of the mandibular repositioning appliance (MRA). Two titratable MRA's were compared. The designs differ in advancement hardware and configuration of acrylic both in bulk and interocclusal contact. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe primary treatment outcome was the Respiratory Disturbance Index (RDI). Other outcomes that were compared included Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index (SAQLI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, oxygen saturation, and subjective feedback regarding experiences with the appliances. Twenty-four subjects were recruited from consecutive referrals for MRA therapy following diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) by polysomnography. Subjects were randomly assigned to a treatment arm of the crossover study. Each subject underwent an initial sleep study with a type III home monitor to establish a baseline RDI. Subjects were then treated with one of the two MRAs determined by random assignment. The MRA self-titration phase was monitored until a treatment position was determined, and the home sleep study was repeated. After a 2-week period without any OSA treatment, subjects received the second MRA and the self-titration treatment protocol was repeated. At completion of treatment with each appliance, subjects answered questionnaires and underwent a sleep study with the type III monitor. The outcome data for each appliance were compared using analysis of variance.
resultsEighteen subjects completed the treatment protocol. There were no significant statistical differences in treatment outcomes between the two appliances. There was a statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) preference for a MRA design with minimal coverage of teeth and palate. The subjects' appliance selection was consistent with a corresponding reduction in SAQLI score for the selected appliance.
conclusionAlthough no statistically significant difference was observed between the two appliances in the outcomes measured, there was a trend toward greater improvement with the appliance with less acrylic resin bulk and less interocclusal contact. MRA selection should favor titratable, unobtrusive designs with appropriate construction to promote acceptance and adherence to MRA therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.