OBJECTIVE: To share our experiences treating patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) with titratable thermoplastic (TPD) and custom-made mandibular advancement devices (MAD) and to compare these devices in terms of objective improvement and cure and treatment success (improvement/cure plus adherence at 6 months). STUDY DESIGN: Case series with planned data collection. SETTING: Tertiary care center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with OSAHS who failed or refused both continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and surgery had a titratable oral appliance fitted. Patients were offered an office-fitted TPD or a custom-made dentist-fitted device. Assessment included pretreatment and appliance-titration polysomnography (PSG). Improvement was defined as ≥ 50% apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) reduction plus posttreatment AHI <20, and cure was defined as AHI <5. Patients were contacted at 1 and 6 months regarding treatment adherence. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients (123 TPD, 57 custom) with complete PSG data were reviewed. Improvement/cure were significantly better with the custom device overall (91.2%/71.9% vs 77.2%/52.0%, P = .024/.012). Adherence data at 1 and 6 months were obtained from 128/180 and 119/180 patients, respectively. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, those lost to follow-up were considered nonadherent. Adherence at 1/6 months was 64.9%/50.9% for custom versus 53.7%/32.5% for TPD (P = .156/.018), yielding treatment success rates (with initial improvement/cure) of 49.1%/40.4% for custom versus 27.6%/17.1% for TPD (P = .005/<.001) at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Custom-fit devices achieve higher rates of objective improvement and cure of OSAHS than TPD at the time of titration-PSG. TPDs have a high acceptance rate, low cost, and reasonable initial improvement and cure rates of 77.2% and 52.0%, respectively, but significantly poorer 6-month compliance.
OBJECTIVE: To share our experiences treating patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) with titratable thermoplastic (TPD) and custom-made mandibular advancement devices (MAD) and to compare these devices in terms of objective improvement and cure and treatment success (improvement/cure plus adherence at 6 months). STUDY DESIGN: Case series with planned data collection. SETTING: Tertiary care center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with OSAHS who failed or refused both continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and surgery had a titratable oral appliance fitted. Patients were offered an office-fitted TPD or a custom-made dentist-fitted device. Assessment included pretreatment and appliance-titration polysomnography (PSG). Improvement was defined as ≥ 50% apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) reduction plus posttreatment AHI <20, and cure was defined as AHI <5. Patients were contacted at 1 and 6 months regarding treatment adherence. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients (123 TPD, 57 custom) with complete PSG data were reviewed. Improvement/cure were significantly better with the custom device overall (91.2%/71.9% vs 77.2%/52.0%, P = .024/.012). Adherence data at 1 and 6 months were obtained from 128/180 and 119/180 patients, respectively. Using an intention-to-treat analysis, those lost to follow-up were considered nonadherent. Adherence at 1/6 months was 64.9%/50.9% for custom versus 53.7%/32.5% for TPD (P = .156/.018), yielding treatment success rates (with initial improvement/cure) of 49.1%/40.4% for custom versus 27.6%/17.1% for TPD (P = .005/<.001) at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Custom-fit devices achieve higher rates of objective improvement and cure of OSAHS than TPD at the time of titration-PSG. TPDs have a high acceptance rate, low cost, and reasonable initial improvement and cure rates of 77.2% and 52.0%, respectively, but significantly poorer 6-month compliance.