Nigel A Fox1. 1. Orthodontic Department, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesborough, Teesside, UK.
Abstract
DATA SOURCES: Searches were made using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia and SciELO (the Scientific Electronic Library Online). STUDY SELECTION: Studies chosen were randomised controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-RCT comparing all types of oral and functional orthopaedic appliances with placebo or no treatment, in children of 15 years old or younger. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently extracted by two review authors. Authors were contacted for additional information. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all important dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 384 trials were identified, of which only one, reporting results from a total of 23 patients, was suitable for inclusion in the review. Data provided in the published report did not answer all the questions from this review, but did answer some: the results presented favour treatment. CONCLUSIONS: At present there is not sufficient evidence to state that oral appliances or functional orthopaedic appliances are effective in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) syndrome in children. Oral appliances or functional orthopaedic appliances may be helpful in the treatment of children with craniofacial anomalies which are risk factors for apnoea.
DATA SOURCES: Searches were made using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia and SciELO (the Scientific Electronic Library Online). STUDY SELECTION: Studies chosen were randomised controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-RCT comparing all types of oral and functional orthopaedic appliances with placebo or no treatment, in children of 15 years old or younger. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently extracted by two review authors. Authors were contacted for additional information. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all important dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 384 trials were identified, of which only one, reporting results from a total of 23 patients, was suitable for inclusion in the review. Data provided in the published report did not answer all the questions from this review, but did answer some: the results presented favour treatment. CONCLUSIONS: At present there is not sufficient evidence to state that oral appliances or functional orthopaedic appliances are effective in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) syndrome in children. Oral appliances or functional orthopaedic appliances may be helpful in the treatment of children with craniofacial anomalies which are risk factors for apnoea.