Literature DB >> 26030264

Oral Appliance Therapy in Patients With Daytime Sleepiness and Snoring or Mild to Moderate Sleep Apnea: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Marie Marklund1, Bo Carlberg2, Lars Forsgren3, Tommy Olsson2, Hans Stenlund2, Karl A Franklin4.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Oral appliances that move the mandible forward during sleep are suggested as treatment for mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea.
OBJECTIVE: To test whether an adjustable, custom-made oral appliance improves daytime sleepiness and quality of life in patients with daytime sleepiness and snoring or mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-six patients with daytime sleepiness and an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) lower than 30 were included in a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel trial in Umeå, Sweden, from May 2007 through August 2011.
INTERVENTIONS: Four months' intervention with an oral appliance or a placebo device. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Daytime sleepiness was measured with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, and the Oxford Sleep Resistance (OSLER) test. Quality of life was assessed with the Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ). Secondary outcomes included the apnea-hypopnea index, headaches, symptoms of restless legs, and insomnia.
RESULTS: Oral appliance therapy was not associated with improvements in daytime sleepiness from baseline to 4-month follow-up when compared with the placebo device; Epworth score >10: 53% at baseline to 24% at follow-up for the oral appliance group vs 54% at baseline to 40% at follow-up for the placebo device group, P = .11; median (IQR) for Karolinska score ≥7/wk: 10 (8 to 14) at baseline to 7 (4 to 9) at follow-up for the oral appliance group vs 12 (6 to 15) at baseline to 8 (5 to 12) at follow-up for the placebo device group, P = .11; mean between-group difference in OSLER test, -2.4 min (95% CI, -6.3 to 1.4). The mean between-group difference for the total FOSQ score was insignificant (-1.2 [95% CI, -2.5 to 0.1]). No domain of the SF-36 differed significantly between the groups. The AHI was below 5 in 49% of patients using the active appliance and in 11% using placebo, with an odds ratio of 7.8 (95% CI, 2.6-23.5) and a number needed to treat of 3. Snoring (P < .001) and symptoms of restless legs (P = .02) were less frequent when using the oral appliance vs placebo, but this did not apply to headache or insomnia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A custom-made, adjustable oral appliance reduces obstructive sleep apnea, snoring, and possibly restless legs without effects on daytime sleepiness and quality of life among patients with daytime sleepiness and snoring or mild to moderate sleep apnea. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00477009.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26030264     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  18 in total

1.  Oral appliance in sleep apnea treatment: respiratory and clinical effects and long-term adherence.

Authors:  Patrick Bachour; Adel Bachour; Paula Kauppi; Paula Maasilta; Antti Mäkitie; Tuula Palotie
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 2.816

2.  Comparison of American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) versus Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) polysomnography (PSG) scoring rules on AHI and eligibility for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment.

Authors:  Arkady Korotinsky; Samson Z Assefa; Montserrat Diaz-Abad; Emerson M Wickwire; Steven M Scharf
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 2.816

Review 3.  Sleep Apnea in Heart Failure.

Authors:  MuChun Tsai; Rami Khayat
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-03-22

Review 4.  Neurological Deficits in Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

Authors:  Luigi Ferini-Strambi; Giulia Elisabetta Lombardi; Sara Marelli; Andrea Galbiati
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Neurol       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.598

5.  Effect of CPAP vs. mandibular advancement device for excessive daytime sleepiness, fatigue, mood, sustained attention, and quality of life in patients with mild OSA.

Authors:  Gabriela Pontes Luz; Luciana Badke; Luiz Eduardo Nery; Luciana Oe Silva; Thais Moura Guimarães; Glaury Coelho; Aline Millani; Rodrigo Gomes Alves; Camila Kase; Sergio Tufik; Lia Bittencourt
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Mandibular Advancement Splint Therapy.

Authors:  Anna M Mohammadieh; Kate Sutherland; Andrew S L Chan; Peter A Cistulli
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 3.650

7.  Pneumoparotid related to obstructive sleep apnea syndrome treated by oral appliance with anterior opening to reduce intraoral pressure.

Authors:  Kazuya Yoshida
Journal:  Clin Case Rep       Date:  2022-05-12

8.  Long-term efficacy of an oral appliance in early treated patients with obstructive sleep apnea.

Authors:  Marie Marklund
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 2.816

9.  Factors influencing adherence to oral appliance therapy in adults with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Harishri Tallamraju; J Tim Newton; Padhraig S Fleming; Ama Johal
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 4.324

Review 10.  Clinical Evidence in the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnoea with Oral Appliances: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Andrea Rossi; Antonino Lo Giudice; Camilla Di Pardo; Alberto Teodoro Valentini; Francesca Marradi; Nicola Vanacore; Cristina Grippaudo
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2021-05-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.