| Literature DB >> 21991477 |
Prachi Gupta1, Ram Thombare, A J Pakhan, Sameer Singhal.
Abstract
Role of complete dentures in reducing apnea-hypoapnea index in edentulous obstructive sleep apnea patient has shown promising results in previous studies. This study was undertaken to ascertain the role of complete denture and complete denture with slight increase in vertical dimension using custom made occlussal jig, on retropharyngeal space, posterior airway space, pharyngeal depth, and spirometric readings in comparison with those in edentulous group. Significant changes were observed in both intervention groups and thus, paving the way for doing further research for the consideration of using complete denture with modifications as an oral appliance in edentulous obstructive sleep apnea patient.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21991477 PMCID: PMC3168939 DOI: 10.5402/2011/516969
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Dent ISSN: 2090-4371
Figure 1(a) Patient wearing complete denture with acceptable VDO. (b) Patient wearing complete denture with increased VDO by using acrylic JIG.
Figure 3(a) Lateral cephalograph of the edentulous subject. (b) Lateral cephalograph of the same subject with acceptable VDO. (c) Lateral cephalograph of the same subject with increased VDO.
Figure 2(a) Custom made acrylic occlusal JIG. (b) Occlusal surface of teeth registered in putty. (c) Increasing vertical dimension by using acrylic JIG.
Figure 4Cephalometric points used in the study.
Figure 5Patient performing spirometry.
Recorded lateral cephalograph and spirometric values.
| Range | Mean value | Percentage increase in comparison to control group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retropharyngeal space (Mp-Lp) in mm | Edentulous subjects (control group) | 6.59–20.18 | 11.97 | 0% |
| First interventional group | 9.64–22.32 | 14.14 | 18.12% | |
| Second interventional group | 12.73–22.78 | 16.90 | 41.18% | |
|
| ||||
| Posterior airway space in mm | Edentulous subjects (control group) | 6.08–23.07 | 12.63 | 0% |
| First interventional group | 7.98–24.96 | 14.50 | 14.80% | |
| Second interventional group | 12.59–26.06 | 17.10 | 35.39% | |
|
| ||||
| apw2-ppw2 in mm | Edentulous subjects (control group) | 8.98–22.15 | 13.55 | 0% |
| First interventional group | 9.92–24.39 | 15.75 | 16.23% | |
| Second interventional group | 14.95–25.48 | 18.67 | 37.78% | |
|
| ||||
| apw4-ppw4 in mm | Edentulous subjects (control group) | 10.56–26.44 | 18.74 | 0% |
| First interventional group | 12.56–27.07 | 20.33 | 8.48% | |
| Second interventional group | 14.08–31.97 | 22.01 | 17.44% | |
|
| ||||
| FVC in % predicted | Edentulous subjects (control group) | 54–98 | 76.75 | 0% |
| First interventional group | 63–98 | 77.35 | 0.78% | |
| Second interventional group | 60–97 | 77.95 | 1.56% | |
|
| ||||
| Fev1 in % predicted | Edentulous subjects (control group) | 54–101 | 76.30 | 0% |
| First interventional group | 48–103 | 77.40 | 1.44% | |
| Second interventional group | 44–91 | 77.15 | 1.11% | |
|
| ||||
| Fev1% in % predicted | Edentulous subjects (control group) | 59–114 | 94.40 | 0% |
| First interventional group | 62–111 | 94.80 | 0.42% | |
| Second interventional group | 64–111 | 94.80 | 0.42% | |
|
| ||||
| PIFR in L/sec | Edentulous subjects (control group) | 1.43–3.75 | 2.39 | 0% |
| First interventional group | 1.51–4.84 | 2.93 | 22.59% | |
| Second interventional group | 1.54–5.24 | 3.29 | 37.65% | |
Statistical analysis of cephalograph and spirometric values.
| One-way ANOVA | Dunnett “ | Unpaired “ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retropharyngeal space | 0.000 *S | A = 0.007 S | 0.004 S |
| Posterior airway space | 0.000 S | A = 0.042 S | 0.015 S |
| apw2-ppw2 | 0.000 S | A = 0.016 S | 0.002 S |
| apw4-ppw4 | 0.001 S | A = 0.103 NS | 0.099 NS |
| FVC | 0.335 **NS | A = 0.862 NS | 0.769 NS |
| Fev1 | 0.775 NS | A = 0.762 NS | 0.998 NS |
| Fev1% | 0.889 NS | A = 0.921 NS | 0.914 NS |
| PIFR | 0.000 S | A = 0.002 S | 0.031 S |
*S = significant.
**NS = non significant.