STUDY OBJECTIVES: The tongue-retaining device is a customized monobloc oral appliance used in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). This study evaluated tongue-retaining device efficacy and its tolerance by patients with OSAS. METHODS: The charts of 84 apneic patients were retrospectively analyzed, and patients were contacted by telephone to answer an oral questionnaire. The median follow-up time was 5 years. RESULTS: Based on the apnea-hypopnea index, a complete or partial response was obtained in 71% of the cases. The mean apnea-hypopnea index decreased significantly from 38 to 14 (p < 0.001) with the tongue-retaining device. The subjective intensity of snoring decreased by 68% (p < 0.0001) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score decreased from 9 to 6 (p < 0.05). An age of more than 60 years associated with a mandibular protrusion distance inferior or equal to 7 mm was predictive of a nonresponse (odds ratio [OR]: 7.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-36.7; p < 0.02). The compliance rate, as determined by answers to the questionnaire, was 52% after 5 years of follow-up. Nasal obstruction was a negative predictor of good compliance (OR: 6.94; 95% CI: 0.28-0.79; p < 0.005), whereas patients with Class I occlusion were more compliant than patients with Class II or III occlusions (OR: 3.83; 95% CI: 1.00-2.81; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tongue-retaining device performance tended to be similar to that of the mandibular advancement device. Thus, teams trained in tongue-retaining device fabrication and fitting may propose it as an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure, taking nasal obstruction into consideration as a contraindication.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The tongue-retaining device is a customized monobloc oral appliance used in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). This study evaluated tongue-retaining device efficacy and its tolerance by patients with OSAS. METHODS: The charts of 84 apneic patients were retrospectively analyzed, and patients were contacted by telephone to answer an oral questionnaire. The median follow-up time was 5 years. RESULTS: Based on the apnea-hypopnea index, a complete or partial response was obtained in 71% of the cases. The mean apnea-hypopnea index decreased significantly from 38 to 14 (p < 0.001) with the tongue-retaining device. The subjective intensity of snoring decreased by 68% (p < 0.0001) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score decreased from 9 to 6 (p < 0.05). An age of more than 60 years associated with a mandibular protrusion distance inferior or equal to 7 mm was predictive of a nonresponse (odds ratio [OR]: 7.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-36.7; p < 0.02). The compliance rate, as determined by answers to the questionnaire, was 52% after 5 years of follow-up. Nasal obstruction was a negative predictor of good compliance (OR: 6.94; 95% CI: 0.28-0.79; p < 0.005), whereas patients with Class I occlusion were more compliant than patients with Class II or III occlusions (OR: 3.83; 95% CI: 1.00-2.81; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tongue-retaining device performance tended to be similar to that of the mandibular advancement device. Thus, teams trained in tongue-retaining device fabrication and fitting may propose it as an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure, taking nasal obstruction into consideration as a contraindication.
Authors: R Ferber; R Millman; M Coppola; J Fleetham; C F Murray; C Iber; W V McCall; G Nino-Murcia; M Pressman; M Sanders Journal: Sleep Date: 1994-06 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Fernanda Ribeiro de Almeida; Alan A Lowe; Satoru Tsuiki; Ryo Otsuka; Mary Wong; Sandra Fastlicht; Frank Ryan Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2005-04-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Nancy J Carballo; Cathy A Alessi; Jennifer L Martin; Michael N Mitchell; Ron D Hays; Nananda Col; Emily S Patterson; Stella Jouldjian; Karen Josephson; Constance H Fung Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2016-10-15 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Waled M Alshhrani; Mona M Hamoda; Kentaro Okuno; Yuuya Kohzuka; John A Fleetham; Najib T Ayas; Robert Comey; Fernanda R Almeida Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 4.324