Semi-fixed versus fixed oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnea: A randomized crossover pilot study.

background/purposeAlthough mandibular advancement oral appliances (OAs) are the most widely used and accepted therapeutic modality for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), whether these maxillary and mandibular appliances should be semi-fixed or fixed remains uncertain. This randomized crossover pilot study compared the efficacy, side effects, and patient preference of semi-fixed and fixed OAs for the treatment of OSA. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with mild to moderate OSA were recruited and randomly assigned to either the semi-fixed or fixed OA group, whereby they used their assigned OA for the first 4 weeks, followed by assessments for sleep parameters (including the Apnea-Hypopnea Index [AHI]) and temporomandibular joint pain as a side effect. After a two-week washout period, patients were switched to the alternative OA for 4 weeks, followed by repeated assessments. Patient preference was assessed at the end of the completed treatment period.

resultsFifteen patients were enrolled and completed the full study protocol. Both types of OAs were efficient in reducing the patient's AHI in comparison to baseline (i.e., without OA). However, there was no significant difference in AHI reduction between the semi-fixed and fixed OA devices. Regarding the side effect of temporomandibular joint pain and patient preference, the semi-fixed OA device was superior to the fixed OA device on both measures.

conclusionWhile both semi-fixed and fixed OAs are effective in treating patients with OSA, semi-fixed OAs are superior in regards to both patient preference and reduced side effects. Thus, semi-fixed OAs may be the preferred therapeutic modality for OSA.