Trial reportHead & face medicine2025
Ultrasonographic evaluation of masticatory and suprahyoid muscles in obstructive sleep apnea patients treated with mandibular advancement devices; a pilot study.
Trial report in Head & face medicine, 2025. 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
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the thickness and ultrasonographic pattern of the masticatory and suprahyoid muscles in OSA patients and compare the effects of mono-bloc (MB) and bibloc (BB) mandibular advancement devices (MADs) via ultrasonographic measurements.
methodsThis pilot study of 20 patients with mild-to-moderate OSA who were diagnosed by full-night polysomnography (manually scored by the American Academy of Standards and Methods (AASM) manual, version 2.4) and treated randomly with mono-bloc or bibloc MAD (n = 10). The baseline thickness and pattern (types I, II, and III) of the masticatory and suprahyoid muscles were assessed by an oral radiologist. The same procedure was repeated at the 3-month and 6-month follow-up time points for participants after appliance use.
resultsBoth types of MAD devices significantly increased the thickness of all muscles (p < 0.05). The changes in ultrasonographic muscle patterns were significant only in the BB group for the SCM muscle (p = 0.006). no other significant changes were observed in the studied ultrasonographic muscle patterns in the MB and BB devices up to 6 months (P > 0.05). No significant differences in muscle thickness or patterns were detected between the MB and BB modalities (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe results of the present study indicate that MAD treatments do not have contraindications based on changes in muscle thickness and ultrasonographic muscle patterns. However, the BB group showed significant changes in the SCM ultrasonographic muscle pattern. Nevertheless, further studies are required to validate these findings.
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.