ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Different Oral Appliance Designs Demonstrate Different Rates of Efficacy for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Review Article.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of mandibular advancement devices vs. CPAP on blood pressure in obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Efficacy of a Novel Treatment Approach for Obstructive Sleep Apnea.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Most Custom Oral Appliances for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Do Not Meet the Definition of Custom.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Predictors of disease alleviation with mandibular advancement devices in obstructive sleep apnea: a retrospective cohort study.Head & face medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obstructive Sleep Apnea afflicts an estimated 1 billion people worldwide. Untreated, Obstructive Sleep Apnea is linked with elevated levels of mortality, decreased quality of life and increased economic costs. However, several large population studies demonstrate that the efficacy of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure therapy, the most frequently prescribed treatment for Obstructive Sleep Apnea, is compromised by frequent refusals and terminations. As a result, healthcare providers are evaluating non-CPAP treatment options. Oral Appliance Therapy has emerged as a leading non-CPAP treatment for patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Historically, healthcare providers have questioned the efficacy of Oral Appliance Therapy. Dozens of Oral Appliances are available to healthcare providers, with many contemporary Oral Appliances featuring improved designs, materials and technologies. This review investigates whether Oral Appliance design matters; do different Oral Appliance designs demonstrate different rates of efficacy? To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first review to exclusively focus on scientific papers that report treatment success with Oral Appliances as a residual Apnea Hypopnea Index of less than 10 events per hour. Out of 272 source papers, the 27 papers included in this review encompass a pooled sample of 3799 patients treated with six distinctly different categories of Oral Appliance designs. Chi-squared and two-sided Fisher's exact tests indicate significant differences in efficacy amongst Oral Appliance designs. These findings suggest that certain Oral Appliance designs can enable highly efficacious treatment for patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Given these findings, healthcare providers should consider design when selecting an oral device for patients diagnosed with Obstructive Sleep Apnea.
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.