OBJECTIVES: Mandibular repositioning appliances (MRAs) are a viable treatment alternative in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). Because these appliances require retention in the patient's dentition, edentelous patients generally do not qualify for this treatment. This study describes our experiences with an implant-retained MRA in the treatment of edentulous OSAHS patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six edentulous OSAHS patients were included in this study. Standard treatment consisted of the placement of four endosseous dental implants in the mandible and the construction of a new maxillary denture and a mandibular overdenture. Subsequently, an MRA was made. After a habituation and adjustment period, the effect of treatment was evaluated with polysomnography. Treatment was considered effective in cases where it yielded an apnea-hypopnea index <5. RESULTS: Of the six patients included, two did not tolerate the MRA because of pressure-induced discomfort on the labial mucosa in the maxilla. These two patients were offered an implant-retained overdenture and MRA in the maxilla. One of the two patients proceeded with this secondary treatment. Of the five patients completing the follow-up polysomnography, effective OSAHS treatment was attained in four. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest that an implant-retained MRA in the mandible is a viable treatment modality in edentulous OSAHS patients. Because the therapeutic effectiveness of this treatment may be compromised by excessive pressure of the MRA on the labial mucosa in the maxilla, we suggest that an implant-retained MRA in the maxilla be offered as a secondary treatment in selected patients.
OBJECTIVES: Mandibular repositioning appliances (MRAs) are a viable treatment alternative in patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). Because these appliances require retention in the patient's dentition, edentelous patients generally do not qualify for this treatment. This study describes our experiences with an implant-retained MRA in the treatment of edentulous OSAHSpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six edentulous OSAHSpatients were included in this study. Standard treatment consisted of the placement of four endosseous dental implants in the mandible and the construction of a new maxillary denture and a mandibular overdenture. Subsequently, an MRA was made. After a habituation and adjustment period, the effect of treatment was evaluated with polysomnography. Treatment was considered effective in cases where it yielded an apnea-hypopnea index <5. RESULTS: Of the six patients included, two did not tolerate the MRA because of pressure-induced discomfort on the labial mucosa in the maxilla. These two patients were offered an implant-retained overdenture and MRA in the maxilla. One of the two patients proceeded with this secondary treatment. Of the five patients completing the follow-up polysomnography, effective OSAHS treatment was attained in four. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest that an implant-retained MRA in the mandible is a viable treatment modality in edentulous OSAHSpatients. Because the therapeutic effectiveness of this treatment may be compromised by excessive pressure of the MRA on the labial mucosa in the maxilla, we suggest that an implant-retained MRA in the maxilla be offered as a secondary treatment in selected patients.