Article

The value of a mandibular repositioning appliance for the treatment of nonapneic snoring.

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery (Impact Factor: 1.73). 02/2011; 144(2):170-3. DOI: 10.1177/0194599810392149
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In this evidence-based case report, the authors addressed the following clinical question: What is the effect of a mandibular repositioning appliance (MRA) in patients with nonapneic snoring on the snoring loudness, partners' sleep disturbance, and quality of life? The authors retrieved relevant publications from Embase, PubMed, Cinahl, CENTRAL, and Web of Science. They used title and abstract field searches with relevant synonyms for the domain, patients with nonapneic snoring, and for the determinant, MRA. The search yielded 499 records. After selection based on relevance and validity, 2 articles remained for answering the authors' clinical question. The authors pooled the data for the level of snoring. MRA as compared to placebo resulted in a reduction of snoring loudness in 38% of patients with nonapneic snoring and in an improvement of sleep disturbance in 54% of the partners. No effect on quality of life and daytime sleepiness of partners was found. Furthermore, evidence for sustained long-term effects and complete recovery is lacking.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
103 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Oral appliances have become increasingly popular for treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea especially for patients who are not able to tolerate continuous positive airway pressure devices. For simple snoring, oral appliances have become one of the treatments of choice despite a relative lack of scientific evidence of their efficiency. This study was designed to objectively evaluate the clinical effectiveness of oral appliance in the treatment of simple snoring. Prospective case series. Fifteen patients with confirmed simple tongue base snoring had pre- and post-oral appliance objective assessment of their snoring loudness and duration at home. The Snore Index was calculated as the number of snores per hour slept. Patients bed partners were asked to rate the snoring severity on a Spouse Dissatisfaction Scale. Overall there was no significant difference in the Snore Index in the pre- and post-oral appliance recordings. Subjectively, there was a statistically significant decrease in the Spouse Dissatisfaction Scale following the use of oral appliance. Tongue base snorers had no significant reduction in their snoring with the oral appliances. There is a subjective benefit which may be due to the placebo effect.
    Clinical otolaryngology: official journal of ENT-UK; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery 01/2009; 33(6):592-5. · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the effectiveness and acceptability of an intra-oral appliance in the reduction of snoring, with construction and fitting as a 1-visit process. This was a prospective study. Patients were attending a hospital sleep breathing disorders clinic and appliances were made at a dental hospital. This work was carried out in the UK during 1996 and 1997. Patients were selected from those referred to a sleep breathing disorders clinic with socially disruptive snoring. Patients were assessed by means of limited sleep studies and by questionnaires before and after fitting of the appliances. The sleep studies consisted of monitoring respiratory variables (principally oronasal airflow and nocturnal oxygen saturation). A respiratory disturbance index was assigned. Questionnaires were completed by both patients and sleep partners, with many of the responses being marked on visual analogue scales. 16 male patients, mean age 49 years, were included in the trial. 14 were able to wear the appliance and their level of snoring, as assessed by their sleep partners, reduced from a mean of 8.8 out of 10 to 4.2 out of 10 (P = 0.0003, paired t-test). It is concluded that the semi-flexible intra-oral appliance is effective in the control of snoring.
    British dental journal 10/1998; 185(6):304-7. · 0.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This randomized, controlled, crossover trial assessed the effectiveness of an adjustable, thermoplastic, mandibular advancement device (MAD), the TheraSnore, in the management of non-apnoeic snoring. Twenty-three adults who had been referred for a MAD wore the appliance in both a non-advanced and advanced position for 4-6 weeks: the starting position of the MAD was randomized. The outcomes were assessed at baseline and after each phase of MAD wear using questionnaires [(Epworth Sleepiness Scale, snoring history, sleep disturbance, side-effects of the appliance) and a visual analogue scale (daytime sleepiness)]. Eleven subjects had overnight sleep studies at baseline and with the appliance in each position to assess snoring frequency (snores/hour), oxygen saturation, and apnoea hypopnoea index. Supine radiographs were used to examine the oropharyngeal airway at baseline and in response to both appliance positions. In comparison with the non-advanced appliance, the advanced MAD reduced the snores per hour from a median of 398 to 17 (P = 0.002). Sleeping partners reported a marked improvement in their own daytime tiredness (P = 0.002) and sleep disturbance (P = 0.001) when the subject wore the active appliance. The most common side-effect was a dry mouth and 64 per cent of subjects considered the appliance bulky. Radiographic analysis revealed significant vertical opening associated with the appliance and small but significant post-lingual changes with protrusion. The results suggest that the advanced TheraSnore MAD is effective in the treatment of snoring in two out of three non-apnoeic snorers, their sleeping partners derive benefits from this form of treatment, and that complaints of bulkiness and dry mouth may to be related to the inherent vertical opening of the TheraSnore.
    The European Journal of Orthodontics 09/2006; 28(4):327-38. · 1.08 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
47 Downloads
Available from
May 27, 2014