Trial reportJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2024
Mouth Closure and Airflow in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06547658 (The Heterogeneous Effects of Mouth Closure on Airflow in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
The Heterogeneous Effects of Mouth Closure on Airflow in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The association of malocclusion severity and uncertainty stress with mouth-breathing behavior in adults: a cross-sectional study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Positive airway pressure-associated epiglottis-related obstruction in adult men with obstructive sleep apnea.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of Mask Type on Pharyngeal Opening Pressures During Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Effects of Oral Appliance Therapy with a Mouth Shield in Periodontitis Patients Who Snore: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Trial.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Mouth breathing is associated with increased airway resistance, pharyngeal collapsibility, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) severity. The common belief is that closing the mouth can mitigate the negative effects of mouth breathing during sleep. However, mouth breathing may serve as an essential route to bypassing obstruction along the nasal route (eg, the velopharynx). Objective: To investigate the role of mouth breathing as an essential route in some patients with OSA and its association with upper airway anatomical factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized clinical trial included participants diagnosed with OSA who underwent drug-induced sleep endoscopy. Patients were stratified into 3 quantiles based on oral-breathing level (quantile 1: oral airflow < 0.05 L/min; quantile 2: oral airflow 0.05-2.2 L/min; quantile 3: oral airflow > 2.2 L/min). Interventions: Closing the mouth during sleep during alternating breaths by applying pressure to the mentum until teeth are in occlusion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was total inspiratory flow defined as the change in airflow in the transition from mouth relaxed to mouth closed, analyzed overall and by 3 oral-breathing quantiles. The association of velopharyngeal obstruction on the change in total inspiratory airflow was also investigated. Results: Of 66 enrolled patients with OSA, 12 were excluded due to insufficient baseline airflow. The analytic cohort consisted of 54 patients (39 [72%] male; median [IQR] age, 55 [46-64] years; apnea-hypopnea index, 26.9 [17.6-39.9] events/h; and body mass index calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared, 28.9 [27.1-31.6]). Mouth closure increased total inspiratory flow by 27.8 percentage points overall (β, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.4-1.9] L/min). However, outcomes varied based on the degree of baseline oral breathing. No association was found for 10 patients with near-zero mouth breathing (0.9 [95% CI, -0.2 to 2.1] L/min). Airflow improved with mouth closure in 32 patients with moderate levels of mouth breathing (2.0 [95% CI, 1.3-2.7] L/min), whereas it worsened in patients with high levels of mouth breathing (-1.9 [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.6] L/min). Velopharyngeal obstruction was associated with increased mouth breathing (0.6 [95% CI, 0.1-3.0] L/min) and reduced airflow with mouth closure (-1.9 [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.7] L/min). Conclusion and Relevance: Although mouth closure increased inspiratory airflow in the overall cohort of this nonrandomized clinical trial, the outcomes were heterogeneous. In patients who breathe primarily through their mouth during sleep and have velopharyngeal obstruction, airflow worsens with mouth closure. Hence, personalized approaches to treating mouth breathing should be considered. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06547658.
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.