Comparison between mono-bloc and bi-bloc mandibular advancement devices for obstructive sleep apnea
- 307 Downloads
Although mandibular advancement device (MAD) is widely used, there are a few papers comparing the efficacy and compliance at the same time according to the type of MAD. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and compliance between mono-bloc and bi-bloc MAD in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Ninety-three patients who treated with mono-bloc MAD and 60 patients with bi-bloc MAD from January 2007 through September 2011 were retrospectively enrolled. All the patients underwent full-night polysomnography(PSG) before and 3 months after MAD was applied. The response rate was significantly higher in the patients using mono-bloc than those using bi-bloc MAD (77.4 vs. 58.3 %; P = 0.012). In contrast, the compliance rate of MAD use was significantly higher in the patients using bi-bloc than those using mono-bloc MAD (68.8 vs. 83.3 %; P = 0.044) at 1 year. According to the severity of OSA, the response rate was significantly higher in severe OSA than in mild to moderate OSA (P = 0.033 for mono-bloc MAD and P = 0.048 for bi-bloc MAD). However, there was no difference in the compliance between mild to moderate OSA and severe OSA. Our study showed that mono-bloc MAD was superior to bi-bloc MAD in efficacy while bi-bloc MAD is superior to mono-bloc MAD in compliance. We propose that both the efficacy and compliance should be considered in using MAD for treatment of OSA.
KeywordsObstructive sleep apnea Mandibular advancement device Efficacy Compliance
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest and no financial disclosures.
- 4.Kushida CA, Morgenthaler TI, Littner MR, Alessi CA, Bailey D, Coleman J Jr, Friedman L, Hirshkowitz M, Kapen S, Kramer M, Lee-Chiong T, Owens J, Pancer JP (2006) Practice parameters for the treatment of snoring and obstructive sleep apnea with oral appliances: an update for 2005. Sleep 29:240–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Fergusson KA, Cartwright R, Rogers R, Schmidt-Nowara W (2006) Oral appliances for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea: a review. Sleep 29:244–262Google Scholar
- 15.Vanderveken OM, Devolder A, Marklund M, Boudewyns AN, Braem MJ, Okkerse W, Verbraecken JA, Franklin KA, De Backer WA, Van de Heyning PH (2008) Comparison of a custom-made and a thermoplastic oral appliance for the treatment of mild sleep apnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 178:197–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar