STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of adjustable and fixed oral appliances for the treatment of OSA. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients with OSA treated with either adjustable or fixed oral appliances. Polysomnography was conducted before and during therapy. Effective treatment was defined as an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) < 5 events/h or < 10 events/h with resolution of sleepiness (Epworth < 10). We compared efficacy rates between fixed and adjustable appliances and sought to identify factors associated with greater success. RESULTS: We included 805 patients, 602 (74.8%) treated with an adjustable and 203 (25.2%) a fixed oral appliances. Among the cohort, 86.4% were men; mean age was 41.3 ± 9.2 years. Mean AHI was 30.7 ± 25.6, with 34.1% having mild (AHI 5-14.9), 29.2% moderate (AHI 15-29.9), and 36.8% severe (AHI ≥ 30) OSA. Successful therapy was significantly more common with adjustable appliances. Obstructive events were reduced to < 5/h in 56.8% with adjustable compared to 47.0% with fixed appliances (p = 0.02). Similarly, a reduction of events to < 10 with resolution of sleepiness occurred in 66.4% with adjustable appliances versus 44.9% with fixed appliances (p < 0.001). For both devices, success was more common in younger patients, with lower BMI and less severe disease. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustable devices produced greater reductions in obstructive events and were more likely to provide successful therapy, especially in moderate-severe OSA. Fixed appliances were effective in mild disease, but were less successful in those with higher AHIs. Given these findings, the baseline AHI should be considered when selecting the type of oral appliance.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of adjustable and fixed oral appliances for the treatment of OSA. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients with OSA treated with either adjustable or fixed oral appliances. Polysomnography was conducted before and during therapy. Effective treatment was defined as an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) < 5 events/h or < 10 events/h with resolution of sleepiness (Epworth < 10). We compared efficacy rates between fixed and adjustable appliances and sought to identify factors associated with greater success. RESULTS: We included 805 patients, 602 (74.8%) treated with an adjustable and 203 (25.2%) a fixed oral appliances. Among the cohort, 86.4% were men; mean age was 41.3 ± 9.2 years. Mean AHI was 30.7 ± 25.6, with 34.1% having mild (AHI 5-14.9), 29.2% moderate (AHI 15-29.9), and 36.8% severe (AHI ≥ 30) OSA. Successful therapy was significantly more common with adjustable appliances. Obstructive events were reduced to < 5/h in 56.8% with adjustable compared to 47.0% with fixed appliances (p = 0.02). Similarly, a reduction of events to < 10 with resolution of sleepiness occurred in 66.4% with adjustable appliances versus 44.9% with fixed appliances (p < 0.001). For both devices, success was more common in younger patients, with lower BMI and less severe disease. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustable devices produced greater reductions in obstructive events and were more likely to provide successful therapy, especially in moderate-severe OSA. Fixed appliances were effective in mild disease, but were less successful in those with higher AHIs. Given these findings, the baseline AHI should be considered when selecting the type of oral appliance.
Authors: Fernanda R Almeida; Jonathan A Parker; James S Hodges; Alan A Lowe; Kathleen A Ferguson Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2009-06-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Maree Barnes; R Douglas McEvoy; Siobhan Banks; Natalie Tarquinio; Christopher G Murray; Norman Vowles; Robert J Pierce Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-06-16 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: F Gagnadoux; B Fleury; B Vielle; B Pételle; N Meslier; X L N'Guyen; W Trzepizur; J L Racineux Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: D M Ten Berge; M J Braem; A Altenburg; M Dieltjens; P H Van de Heyning; K Vanhaecht; O M Vanderveken Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Kate Sutherland; Hisashi Takaya; Jin Qian; Peter Petocz; Andrew T Ng; Peter A Cistulli Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Cristina V Perez; Reny de Leeuw; Jeffrey P Okeson; Charles R Carlson; Hsin-Fang Li; Heather M Bush; Donald A Falace Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: M Dieltjens; O M Vanderveken; D Van den Bosch; K Wouters; J Denollet; J A Verbraecken; P H Van de Heyning; M J Braem Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Fernanda R Almeida; Alan Mulgrew; Najib Ayas; Hiroko Tsuda; Alan A Lowe; Nurit Fox; Sandra Harrison; John A Fleetham Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Olivier M Vanderveken; Joachim T Maurer; Winfried Hohenhorst; Evert Hamans; Ho-Sheng Lin; Anneclaire V Vroegop; Clemens Anders; Nico de Vries; Paul H Van de Heyning Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 4.062