Mandibular advancement device design: A systematic review on outcomes in obstructive sleep apnea treatment

Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is often treated with Mandibular Advancement Devices (MADs). It is unclear whether particular design features are superior to others in terms of OSA alleviation. In order to facilitate clinical decision-making, this systematic review summarizes the objective and subjective outcomes of different available MAD designs. Studies comparing different MAD designs in OSA treatment were searched. After screening 1887 titles and abstracts, 20 original RCTs and six cohort studies were included. 14 articles were systematically reviewed in a meta-analysis. The decrease in AHI was significantly different between some of the MAD designs. The clinical relevance of the observed differences was however limited. Monoblock appliances performed more favorable, compared to bilateral thrust (effect size:-0.37; CI:-1.81 to 0.07). Midline traction appliances performed more favorable, compared to other designs. Custom appliances performed more favorable, compared to thermoplastic appliances (effect size:0.86; CI:-0.62 to 2.35). Furthermore, there were no clinically relevant differences between MAD designs in reduction of ESS, compliance, preference, side effects, and cost effectiveness. With respect to the included trials, presently there is not one superior custom MAD design in OSA treatment regarding the effect on AHI reduction, ESS improvement, compliance, preference, side effects, cost effectiveness, and other disease-related outcomes. We confirm custom MAD designs perform superior to thermoplastic MAD designs

An interim oral appliance as a screening tool during drug-induced sleep endoscopy to predict treatment success with a mandibular advancement device for obstructive sleep apnea

Purpose: Previous studies have shown a wide range of efficacy (29 to 71%) of a mandibular advancement device (MAD) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Currently, the ability to preselect suitable patients for MAD therapy based on individual characteristics related to upper airway collapsibility is limited. We investigated if the use of non-custom interim MAD during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) could be a valuable screening tool to predict MAD treatment outcome. Methods: In a single-center prospective study including a consecutive series of patients with OSA, we compared DISE outcomes with a MAD in situ with polysomnography results after 3 months of using the same MAD that was used during DISE. Results: Of 41 patients who completed the study, the median apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) was 16.0 events/h [IQR 7.4–23.4]. Respiratory outcomes on polysomnography, including apnea index (AI), total AHI, AHI in supine position, and oxygen desaturation index, all significantly improved after 3 months of MAD treatment. With complete improvement of the upper airway obstruction with the MAD in situ during DISE in supine position, patients were 6.3 times more likely to be a responder to MAD treatment compared to patients with a persisting complete obstruction, although not statistically significant (OR 6.3; 95%CI 0.9–42.7; p = 0.060). Conclusion: The potential predictive value with regard to MAD therapy outcomes of the use of an interim MAD during DISE would be an important finding, since the prediction of MAD therapy outcome is of great clinical and scientific interest. A study with a larger cohort should be performed to further investigate our findings