The use of oral appliances in obstructive sleep apnea: a retrospective cohort study spanning 14 years of private practice experience.
Based on 14 years of experience and data, oral appliances work as a treatment for sleep apnea with a 80% success rate.
Sylvan S. Mintz, DDS, MSD
Sleep and Breathing May 2018, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 541-546
In 2005, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine stated “Oral appliances are indicated for use in patients with mild to moderate sleep apnea (OSA) who prefer them to CPAP therapy, or who do not respond to, or not appropriate candidates for, or who fail treatment attempts with CPAP.” However, this recommendation is based on variable results of only six studies with more than 100 participants. These studies have assessed effectiveness of mandibular advancement devices (MAD) in specific groups (military populations, academic institutions, or hospital settings) with no large study conducted in in a fee-for service private practice where a majority of patients receive MADs for OSA.The purpose of this study is to report outcomes of a board-certified dental sleep practitioner managing mild, moderate and severe OSA using customized titratable MADs. We hypothesize that patients will demonstrate a significant reduction in apnea hypopnea index (AHI) scores after adjusting their customized titratable MADs.
This is a 14-year retrospective study design with pre- and post-treatment sleep studies. An AHI score <10 respiratory events per hour with therapy is defined as treatment success. This study was performed by a single private practitioner.
Of 2419 patient records analyzed, 544 (22%) had pre- and post-treatment sleep studies (89% polysomnograms). Of 510 patients with complete data, 459 (90%) revealed a decrease in AHI score <10 respiratory events per hour indicating treatment success. Only 51 of these patients (10%) had a final AHI > 10 were considered treatment failures. Among the patients who lacked a post treatment polysomnograms, 66/1921 (3%) discontinued the MAD due to adverse effects. Considering these patients as treatment failures as well, and therefor adding their number to the patients with complete sleep study data, the total treatment failures were 117/576 or 20%. Of the treatment successes, OSA was categorized as mild in 170 (34%), moderate in 181 (36%), and severe in 138 (28%).
In patients with evaluable data, there was an 80% success rate for treatment of OSA using a custom-fabricated adjustable MAD including substantial numbers of patients with moderate and severe disease.