SynthesisMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2017
Mandibular advancement devices vs nasal-continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea. Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Oral Modifications Caused by the Prolonged Application of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Intraoral Appliances in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA).BioMed research international · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative effects of CPAP and mandibular advancement devices in obstructive sleep apnea: an overview of systematic reviews.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2026Review
- Treatment choice in mild to moderate sleep apnoea in the European Sleep Apnea Database.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Review
- Review of systematic reviews on mandibular advancement oral appliance for obstructive sleep apnea: The importance of long-term follow-up.The Japanese dental science review · 2020Review
- Pneumoparotid and Pneumoparotitis: A Literary Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
- Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy: Clinical Application and Surgical Outcomes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- A comprehensive review of obstructive sleep apnea.Sleep science (Sao Paulo, Brazil)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a common disorder that may affect at least 2 to 4% of the adult population. Nasal-Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (N-CPAP) is today considered the gold standard for the treatment of OSA. The development of oral appliances (OAs) represents a new approach for the management of this pathology. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy of OAs and N-CPAP in the treatment of patients with mild to severe OSA. MATERIAL AND
methodsA PubMed-MEDLINE and Cochrane databases search of articles published between 1982 and 2016 comparing the effect of N-CPAP and OAs in OSA patients was conducted during July 2016. The studies were selected and stratified according to PRISMA and SORT criteria. The main outcome measure was post-treatment Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) while secondary outcomes included post-treatment Epworth Score Scale (ESS) score and lowest Oxygen Saturation level.
resultsN-CPAP was significantly more effective in suppressing AHI than OA. Moreover, N- CPAP was significantly more effective in increasing post-treatment lowest Oxygen Saturation level than OA. However, no significant different in decreasing ESS values was found between the two treatments.
conclusionsOn the basis of evidence in this review it would appear appropriate to offer OA therapy to those who are unwilling or unable to persist with CPAP therapy. N-CPAP still must be considered the gold standard treatment for OSA and, therefore, OAs may be included in the list of alternative options.
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.