ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
A computed tomographic evaluation of effect of mandibular advancement device at two different horizontal jaw positions in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Diagnostic Imaging on Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Feedback from a Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statement of problem: Studies pertaining to the objective assessments of the efficacy of mandibular advancement device in patients with obstructive sleep apnea are scarce. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the effect of MAD at two different horizontal positions of mandible on upper airway dimensions through computed tomography. Material and methods: Twenty-nine consenting participants satisfying predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled and an adjustable two-piece MAD was fabricated at 50% maximum mandibular protrusion and after 4 weeks was adjusted to 70% protrusion. CT scans were obtained at baseline, 4 weeks after delivering MAD with 50% mandibular protrusion, and then after 4 weeks with 70% mandibular protrusion. Cross sectional area with diameters (lateral and anteroposterior) of upper airway was measured at three specific anatomic levels (retropalatal-RP, retroglossal-RG, and epiglottal-EG). Data were analyzed using the Student t-test for parametric analysis. Results: Intragroup comparison revealed a statistically significant increase in lateral & anteroposterior dimensions as well as cross sectional area at all three anatomical levels at 4 weeks after MAD with 50% mandibular protrusion compared with baseline and 4 weeks after MAD with 70% mandibular protrusion compared with baseline. However, the difference between lateral and anteroposterior dimensions with MAD at 70% protrusion compared with MAD at 50% protrusion was not statistically significant. The difference between cross-sectional area was found to be statistically significant. Conclusion: Mandibular advancement device at 70% mandibular protrusion is more effective compared with the device at 50% protrusion in relieving oropharyngeal obstruction seen in OSA.
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.