Hui Chen1,2,3, Ghizlane Aarab3, Frank Lobbezoo3, Jan De Lange4, Paul Van der Stelt1, M Ali Darendeliler5, Peter A Cistulli6, Kate Sutherland6, Oyku Dalci5. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Orthodontics, School of Stomatology, Shandong University and Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine of Shandong, Jinan, China. 3. Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Discipline of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney Dental Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, and Charles Perkins Centre, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: The primary aim of this study was to assess the differences in the upper airway morphology between responders and non-responders to mandibular advancement splint (MAS) treatment in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) management. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between the minimum cross-sectional area of the upper airway and the anatomical structures (i.e. mandibular external length, maxillary length, soft palate length, area of the tongue, maxillomandibular enclosure size, and anatomical balance ratio) surrounding the upper airway. The third aim was to assess the differences in the overall skeletal configuration between responders and non-responders to MAS treatment. METHODS: Data from 64 patients (23 females and 41 males) diagnosed with OSA by polysomnography (PSG) at baseline and provided with an adjustable MAS were analysed. All patients had NewTom3G cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, performed in the supine position, at baseline. After acclimatization to MAS, follow-up PSG tests were performed to assess the apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI) with the MAS in situ. Responders were defined by a post-treatment AHI less than 10/hour and at least 50 per cent reduction in AHI, and non-responders by a post-treatment AHI at least 10/hour or less than 50 per cent reduction in AHI. Several upper airway and anatomical variables surrounding the upper airway based on CBCT images were measured to determine the differences between responders and non-responders to MAS. RESULTS: There were 36 responders (AHI = 24.8 ± 11.9 at baseline) and 28 non-responders (AHI = 31.2 ± 20.3 at baseline) to MAS. There were no significant differences in the upper airway morphology between responders and non-responders (P = 0.17-0.93) or in the anatomical structure surrounding the upper airway (P = 0.24-0.58). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that there are no significant differences in upper airway morphology and in anatomical structures surrounding the upper airway between responders and non-responders to MAS treatment. These findings suggest that the craniofacial anatomical structures analyzed in this study cannot explain the response to MAS treatment.
AIM: The primary aim of this study was to assess the differences in the upper airway morphology between responders and non-responders to mandibular advancement splint (MAS) treatment in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) management. The secondary aim was to assess the correlation between the minimum cross-sectional area of the upper airway and the anatomical structures (i.e. mandibular external length, maxillary length, soft palate length, area of the tongue, maxillomandibular enclosure size, and anatomical balance ratio) surrounding the upper airway. The third aim was to assess the differences in the overall skeletal configuration between responders and non-responders to MAS treatment. METHODS: Data from 64 patients (23 females and 41 males) diagnosed with OSA by polysomnography (PSG) at baseline and provided with an adjustable MAS were analysed. All patients had NewTom3G cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, performed in the supine position, at baseline. After acclimatization to MAS, follow-up PSG tests were performed to assess the apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI) with the MAS in situ. Responders were defined by a post-treatment AHI less than 10/hour and at least 50 per cent reduction in AHI, and non-responders by a post-treatment AHI at least 10/hour or less than 50 per cent reduction in AHI. Several upper airway and anatomical variables surrounding the upper airway based on CBCT images were measured to determine the differences between responders and non-responders to MAS. RESULTS: There were 36 responders (AHI = 24.8 ± 11.9 at baseline) and 28 non-responders (AHI = 31.2 ± 20.3 at baseline) to MAS. There were no significant differences in the upper airway morphology between responders and non-responders (P = 0.17-0.93) or in the anatomical structure surrounding the upper airway (P = 0.24-0.58). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that there are no significant differences in upper airway morphology and in anatomical structures surrounding the upper airway between responders and non-responders to MAS treatment. These findings suggest that the craniofacial anatomical structures analyzed in this study cannot explain the response to MAS treatment.