Observational studySleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2026
Side effects of mandibular advancement devices in obstructive sleep apnea patients - observational results of a randomized controlled trial.
Observational study in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04050514 (Side Effects of Two Different Mandibular Advancement Devices), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Side Effects of Two Different Mandibular Advancement Devices (MAD) in the Treatment of Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify side effects of two different mandibular advancement devices (MAD) for treating obstructive sleep apnea.
methodsSixty-five patients were randomly assigned to two MADs (MAD 1 with bilateral sliding wings, MAD 2 with bilateral bars according to the Herbst appliance). Instructions for supportive jaw exercises and a morning occlusal guide were supplied. Orofacial pain, tenderness of masticatory muscles and temporomandibular joints, interdental contact analysis (digital bite registration system, Greifswald Digital Analyzing System (GEDAS) and Shimstock-foil), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and the Oral Health Impact Profile 5 were assessed before and after one year of treatment. MADs were compared using linear models, which were adjusted for study center, age, sex, and baseline values. Tooth type and tooth status were also included in the multilevel model of interdental contacts.
resultsThis study did not contradict the supposition that both MADs yield the same mean for the primary outcome, orofacial pain (P = 0.107; n = 49), possibly because of the reduced sample size due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant loss of posterior tooth contacts (n = 37) was established when applying the digital analysis for both MADs. Somnological variables were decreased in the follow-up examination, with no relevant differences between both MAD designs.
conclusionFor comparing pain in MAD groups, more data will be needed to pool in meta-analyses. However, in our study, loss of interocclusal contacts in posterior teeth could not be prevented by jaw exercises or the use of an occlusal guide. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT04050514, 08/01/2019.
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.