AIM: To assess the efficacy of a mandibular advancement splint (MAS) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS). METHODS:Nineteen patients using a MAS for symptomatic OSAS underwent polysomnography, with MAS use randomised to one half of the night. Indices of snoring and OSAS were compared. Side effects, compliance and treatment response were evaluated by questionnaire. RESULTS: Use of the MAS improved total respiratory disturbance index (RDI) from 22.2 +/- 19.8 (SD) events per hour to 16.5 +/- 21.4/hr (p = 0.03), supine RDI (30.8 +/- 23.8/hr to 18.8 +/- 22.1/hr, p = 0.01), arousal index (25.2 +/- 18.9/hr to 19.3 +/- 14.2/hr, p = 0.01) and snoring intensity (52.7 +/- 4.1 to 50.7 +/- 2.7 dB, p = 0.02) but not total snore frequency (p > 0.05). Using polysomnographic criteria, MAS treatment was completely successful in four (21%) patients, partially successful in ten (52.6%) and a failure in five (26.3%). Treatment over a median of 6.5 weeks (range 2-48) was perceived as beneficial by ten of eleven partners. Fifteen patients (79%) reported side effects, 9 (46%) did not use the device every night and four (21%) used the device less than three nights per week. CONCLUSION: The use of the MAS resulted in significant reductions in indices of OSAS and snoring. However, a significant number of patients had difficulty tolerating and regularly using the device.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To assess the efficacy of a mandibular advancement splint (MAS) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS). METHODS: Nineteen patients using a MAS for symptomatic OSAS underwent polysomnography, with MAS use randomised to one half of the night. Indices of snoring and OSAS were compared. Side effects, compliance and treatment response were evaluated by questionnaire. RESULTS: Use of the MAS improved total respiratory disturbance index (RDI) from 22.2 +/- 19.8 (SD) events per hour to 16.5 +/- 21.4/hr (p = 0.03), supine RDI (30.8 +/- 23.8/hr to 18.8 +/- 22.1/hr, p = 0.01), arousal index (25.2 +/- 18.9/hr to 19.3 +/- 14.2/hr, p = 0.01) and snoring intensity (52.7 +/- 4.1 to 50.7 +/- 2.7 dB, p = 0.02) but not total snore frequency (p > 0.05). Using polysomnographic criteria, MAS treatment was completely successful in four (21%) patients, partially successful in ten (52.6%) and a failure in five (26.3%). Treatment over a median of 6.5 weeks (range 2-48) was perceived as beneficial by ten of eleven partners. Fifteen patients (79%) reported side effects, 9 (46%) did not use the device every night and four (21%) used the device less than three nights per week. CONCLUSION: The use of the MAS resulted in significant reductions in indices of OSAS and snoring. However, a significant number of patients had difficulty tolerating and regularly using the device.
Authors: Boris A Stuck; Alfred Dreher; Clemens Heiser; Michael Herzog; Thomas Kühnel; Joachim T Maurer; Hans Pistner; Helmut Sitter; Armin Steffen; Thomas Verse Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: B A Stuck; A Dreher; C Heiser; M Herzog; T Kühnel; J T Maurer; H Pistner; H Sitter; A Steffen; T Verse Journal: HNO Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: Andressa Otranto de Britto Teixeira; Luciana Baptista Pereira Abi-Ramia; Marco Antonio de Oliveira Almeida Journal: Prog Orthod Date: 2013-05-23 Impact factor: 2.750
Authors: Andressa Otranto de Britto Teixeira; Ana Luiza Ladeia Andrade; Rhita Cristina da Cunha Almeida; Marco Antonio de Oliveira Almeida Journal: Braz J Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2017-10-14