SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
The Most Effective Amount of Forward Movement for Oral Appliances for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of different treatments for obstructive sleep apnea on temporomandibular joint: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- The comparison of two different mandibular positions for oral appliance therapy in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Trial
- Mandibular Advancement for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Efficacy and the Trade-off of Expiratory Velopharyngeal Obstruction During Sleep Endoscopy - An Exploratory Observational Study.Nature and science of sleep · 2026Article
- Orofacial pain/headache interlaced to insomnia, sleep apnea and periodic limb movement during sleep/restless leg syndrome: a critical and comprehensive review with insights into social determinants.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2025Review
- Do dental parameters predict severity of obstructive sleep apnea and mandibular advancement device therapy outcomes? A pilot study.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Airway changes in patients with sleep apnea using AdvanSync2 Class II correctors - a case series.Medicine and pharmacy reports · 2022Article
- Dental and Skeletal Side Effects of Oral Appliances Used for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Snoring in Adult Patients-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Acoustic pharyngometry - A new method to facilitate oral appliance therapy.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2021Article
- A consideration of factors affecting palliative oral appliance effectiveness for obstructive sleep apnea: a scoping review.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2021Article
- Semi-fixed versus fixed oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnea: A randomized crossover pilot study.Journal of dental sciences · 2021Article
- Sleep apnea and prosthodontic implications.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review clarifies the amount of effective protrusion in mandibular advancement devices of oral appliances required for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Review Manager 5 and GRADEpro were used to combine trials and analyze data. The present review included three studies. In mild to moderate OSA cases, measured using the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), 50% protrusion was more effective than 75% protrusion. However, 75% protrusion was more effective for severe cases. Sleep stage, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), snoring index, and side effects significantly differed between the groups. Additionally, 75% protrusion was more effective (AHI: 0.38, 95% CI: -0.89 to 1.65,
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.