SynthesisActa medica academica2024
The Efficacy of Various Orthodontic Appliances in the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea.
Synthesis in Acta medica academica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of this review was to determine the effectiveness of different types of monobloc and bibloc mandibular advancement device (MAD) devices in the treatment of all forms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), by reviewing the available literature.
methodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, ResearchGate, NCBI and Google Scholar databases. The search included articles in English, published in the inclusive time period from 2000 to 2024.
resultsA total of 13 studies were analyzed that directly compared the effectiveness of monobloc and bibloc devices. The studies were published in the period from 2000 to 2024, and included crossover and parallel randomized controlled trials, as well as cross and parallel cohort studies. Out of the 13 studies, four were classified as RCT parallel studies, six were RCT crossover studies, two cohort parallel studies, and one cohort crossover study. The duration of the studies was variable, ranging from four weeks to one year, with six studies having a so-called "washout period" between the use of monobloc and bibloc MAD devices.
conclusionBoth monobloc and bibloc devices show significant success rates in the treatment of mild to moderate OSA.
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.