Factors influencing adherence to oral appliance therapy in adults with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harishri Tallamraju ◽  
J. Tim Newton ◽  
Padhraig S. Fleming ◽  
Ama Johal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Obstructive Sleep Apnea ◽  
Sleep Apnea ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Appliance ◽  
Oral Appliance Therapy ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Obstructive Sleep

Cardiovascular effects of oral appliance therapy in obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 55-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grietje E. de Vries ◽  
Peter J. Wijkstra ◽  
Ewout J. Houwerzijl ◽  
Huib A.M. Kerstjens ◽  
Aarnoud Hoekema
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Obstructive Sleep Apnea ◽  
Sleep Apnea ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cardiovascular Effects ◽  
Oral Appliance ◽  
Oral Appliance Therapy ◽  
Obstructive Sleep

scholarly journals The Efficacy of Device Designs (Mono-block or Bi-block) in Oral Appliance Therapy for Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (17) ◽  
pp. 3182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Ishiyama ◽  
Daichi Hasebe ◽  
Kazumichi Sato ◽  
Yuki Sakamoto ◽  
Akifumi Furuhashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Obstructive Sleep Apnea ◽  
Sleep Apnea ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Appliance ◽  
Sleep Efficiency ◽  
Apnea Hypopnea Index ◽  
Arousal Index ◽  
Obstructive Sleep

Oral appliance (OAm) therapy has demonstrated efficacy in treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The aim of this systematic review was to clarify the efficacy of device designs (Mono-block or Bi-block) in OAm therapy for OSA patients. We performed a meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Two studies (Mono-block OAm versus Bi-block OAm) remained eligible after applying the exclusion criteria. When comparing Mono-block OAm and Bi-block OAm, Mono-block OAm significantly reduced the apnea–hypopnea index (2.92; 95% confidence interval (95%CI), 1.26 to 4.58; p = 0.0006), and patient preference for Mono-block OAm was significantly higher (2.06; 95%CI, 1.44 to 2.06; p < 0.0001). Lowest SpO2, arousal index, non-REM stage 3, sleep efficiency, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Snoring Scale, and side effects were not significantly different between the two groups (lowest SpO2: −11.18; 95%CI, −26.90 to 4.54; p = 0.16, arousal index: 4.40; 95%CI, −6.00 to 14.80; p = 0.41, non-REM stage 3: −2.00; 95%CI, −6.00 to 14.80; p = 0.41, sleep efficiency: −1.42, 95%CI, −4.71 to 1.86; p = 0.40, ESS: 0.12; 95%CI, −1.55 to 1.79; p = 0.89, Snoring Scale: 0.55; 95%CI, −0.73 to 1.83, p = 0.55, side effects: 1.00, 95%CI, 0.62 to 1.61, p = 1.00). In this systematic review, the use of Mono-block OAm was more effective than Bi-block OAm for OSA patients.

Oral appliance therapy in obstructive sleep apnea and snoring - systematic review and new directions of development

CRANIO® ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aranka Ilea ◽  
Daniela Timuș ◽  
Julian Höpken ◽  
Vlad Andrei ◽  
Anida-Maria Băbțan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Obstructive Sleep Apnea ◽  
Sleep Apnea ◽  
Oral Appliance ◽  
Oral Appliance Therapy ◽  
Obstructive Sleep ◽  
New Directions

scholarly journals Cardiovascular Benefits of Oral Appliance Therapy in Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilles Van Haesendonck ◽  
Marijke Dieltjens ◽  
Chloé Kastoer ◽  
Bharati Shivalkar ◽  
Christiaan Vrints ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Obstructive Sleep Apnea ◽  
Sleep Apnea ◽  
Oral Appliance ◽  
Oral Appliance Therapy ◽  
Obstructive Sleep
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document