We have located links that may give you full text access.
Ready-Made Versus Custom-Made Mandibular Repositioning Devices in Sleep Apnea: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine : JCSM : Official Publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 2017 Februrary 16
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of a custom-made (MRDc) versus ready-made (MRDr) mandibular repositioning devices (MRD) in the management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
METHODS: A randomized crossover trial design was adopted in which patients with a confirmed diagnosis of OSA were randomly allocated to receive either a 3-month period of ready-made or custom-made MRD, with an intervening washout period of 2 weeks, prior to crossover. Treatment outcomes included both objective sleep monitoring and patient-centered measures (daytime sleepiness, partner snoring and quality of life).
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients, with a mild degree of OSA (apnea-hypopnea index of 13.3 [10.9-25] events/h) and daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale of 11 [6-16]), completed both arms of the trial. The MRDc achieved a complete treatment response in 64% of participants, compared with 24% with the MRDr (p < 0.001). A significant difference was observed in treatment failures, when comparing the MRDr (36%) with the MRDc (4%). Excessive daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale ≥ 10) persisted in 33% (MRDc) and 66% (MRDr) of OSA subjects, following treatment. A statistically significant improvement was observed in quality of life scales following MRDc therapy only. Significant differences were observed in relation to both the number of nights per week (p = 0.004) and hours per night (p = 0.006) between the two different designs of device.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates the significant clinical effectiveness of a custom-made mandibular repositioning device, particularly in terms of patient compliance and tolerance, in the treatment of OSA.
METHODS: A randomized crossover trial design was adopted in which patients with a confirmed diagnosis of OSA were randomly allocated to receive either a 3-month period of ready-made or custom-made MRD, with an intervening washout period of 2 weeks, prior to crossover. Treatment outcomes included both objective sleep monitoring and patient-centered measures (daytime sleepiness, partner snoring and quality of life).
RESULTS: Twenty-five patients, with a mild degree of OSA (apnea-hypopnea index of 13.3 [10.9-25] events/h) and daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale of 11 [6-16]), completed both arms of the trial. The MRDc achieved a complete treatment response in 64% of participants, compared with 24% with the MRDr (p < 0.001). A significant difference was observed in treatment failures, when comparing the MRDr (36%) with the MRDc (4%). Excessive daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale ≥ 10) persisted in 33% (MRDc) and 66% (MRDr) of OSA subjects, following treatment. A statistically significant improvement was observed in quality of life scales following MRDc therapy only. Significant differences were observed in relation to both the number of nights per week (p = 0.004) and hours per night (p = 0.006) between the two different designs of device.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates the significant clinical effectiveness of a custom-made mandibular repositioning device, particularly in terms of patient compliance and tolerance, in the treatment of OSA.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app