Observational studySleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2024
Mandibular advancement device in obstructive sleep apnea treatment: what happens to the condyle position and patient response?
Observational study in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims primarily to assess the mandibular condyles and patient response to MAD therapy using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Also, the study proposes to analyze whether variations in condylar position, OSA severity and mandibular protrusion influence patient response.
methods23 patients diagnosed with mild/moderate OSA and treated with MAD comprised the sample. Clinical, CBCT, and PSG assessments were conducted at baseline and with MAD in therapeutic protrusion (4-6 months of MAD use). The condyle position was vertically and horizontally evaluated at baseline and at the therapeutic protrusion.
resultsThe condyle position significantly changed with MAD, showing anterior (7.3 ± 2.8 mm; p < 0.001) and inferior (3.5 ± 1 mm; p < 0.001) displacement. Patients with mild OSA required more protrusion (p = 0.02) for improvement. Responders exhibited a significantly prominent (p = 0.04) anterior baseline condyle position. A negative modest correlation was found between treatment response and baseline condyle anterior position (p = 0.03; r=-0.4), as well as between OSA severity and the percentage of maximum protrusion needed for therapeutic protrusion (p = 0.02; r=-0.4). The patient protrusion amount did not predict condylar positional changes. Neither condyle position, OSA severity, nor therapeutic protrusion were predictors of MAD treatment response.
conclusionMAD resulted in anterior and inferior condylar displacement, and the amount of protrusion did not predict condylar positional changes. Responders showed a more anterior baseline condyle position. OSA severity and mandibular protrusion did not predict treatment response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39046657What 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.