Efficacy and co-morbidity of oral appliances in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea: a systematic review

• Published in: Critical reviews in oral biology and medicine Vol. 15; no. 3; pp. 137 - 155
• Main Authors: Hoekema, A, Stegenga, B, De Bont, L G M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 04.06.2004
• Subjects: Comorbidity; Craniomandibular Disorders - etiology; Dentistry; Humans; Malocclusion - etiology; Mandibular Advancement - instrumentation; Occlusal Splints - adverse effects; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive - therapy
• ISSN: 1544-1113
• DOI: 10.1177/154411130401500303

The Obstructive Sleep Apnea-Hypopnea Syndrome (OSAHS) is a common sleep-related breathing disorder characterized by repetitive obstructions of the upper airway during sleep. Modification of pharyngeal patency by Oral Appliance (OA) therapy has been suggested as an alternative to various treatment modalities for OSAHS. To determine the evidence base with respect to the efficacy and co-morbidity of OA therapy in OSAHS, we conducted a systematic review of the available literature. Primary outcome measures were the reduction in number of upper-airway obstructions and co-morbidity related to the craniomandibular or craniofacial complex, respectively. Eligible studies regarding efficacy were independently assessed by two assessors using a quality assessment scale. Effect sizes of methodologically sound studies were calculated. In identical interventions, effect sizes were pooled with the use of a random-effects model. Given the scarcity of controlled studies related to co-morbidity, appraisal was confined to a description of eligible studies. Sixteen controlled trials related to efficacy were identified. With respect to the primary outcome measure, OA therapy was clearly more effective than control therapy (pooled effect size, -0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.49 to -0.42) and possibly more effective than uvulopalatopharyngoplasty. Although patients generally preferred OA therapy, improvement of respiratory variables, such as the number of upper-airway obstructions, was usually better in Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) therapy (pooled effect size, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.06). Moreover, specific aspects related to OA design may influence patient-perceived efficacy and preference. Twelve patient-series and one controlled trial related to co-morbidity were identified. Analysis of the data suggests that OA therapy may have adverse effects on the craniomandibular and craniofacial complex. Although CPAP is apparently more effective and adverse effects of OA treatment have been described, it can be concluded that OA therapy is a viable treatment for, especially, mild to moderate OSAHS. Controlled studies addressing the specific indication and co-morbidity of OA therapy are warranted.