Cargando…

Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non‐adherent to CPAP

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effect of individually adjusted custom‐made mandibular advancement device/oral appliance (OA) in treatment of patients with moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), who were non‐adherent to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gjerde, K., Lehmann, S., Berge, M. E., Johansson, A.‐K., Johansson, A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4834725/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26707632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joor.12376
_version_ 1782427531230576640
author Gjerde, K.
Lehmann, S.
Berge, M. E.
Johansson, A.‐K.
Johansson, A.
author_facet Gjerde, K.
Lehmann, S.
Berge, M. E.
Johansson, A.‐K.
Johansson, A.
author_sort Gjerde, K.
collection PubMed
description The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effect of individually adjusted custom‐made mandibular advancement device/oral appliance (OA) in treatment of patients with moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), who were non‐adherent to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. During 2007‐2013, 116 patients with moderate (n = 82) and severe (n = 34) OSA non‐adherent to CPAP treatment were referred for dental management with an individually adjusted OA at a specialist sleep clinic. Ten of the participants (8·6%) were lost to follow‐up, leaving the data set to consist of 106 patients (71 men/35 women, mean age 57 year, range 28‐90). Nocturnal respiratory polygraphic recordings were performed at baseline and follow‐up. Average time between baseline polygraphy and follow‐up was 12 months. A successful OA treatment outcome was based on polygraphy at the follow‐up and divided into three groups: 1 = AHI <5; 2 = 5 ≤ AHI <10 and >50% reduction in baseline AHI; and 3. >50% reduction in baseline AHI. If there was a ≤ 50% reduction in baseline AHI at the follow‐up, the treatment was considered as a failure. The overall treatment success rate was 75%. There was no significant difference in success rates between patients in the moderate and severe categories (69% and 77%, respectively). Low oxygen saturation (SpO(2 nadir)) had a high predictive value for OA treatment failure. OA treatment of patients non‐adherent to CPAP is efficient and especially promising for the severe OSA group who are at greatest risks for developing serious comorbidities, if left untreated.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4834725
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48347252016-05-05 Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non‐adherent to CPAP Gjerde, K. Lehmann, S. Berge, M. E. Johansson, A.‐K. Johansson, A. J Oral Rehabil Original Articles The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effect of individually adjusted custom‐made mandibular advancement device/oral appliance (OA) in treatment of patients with moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), who were non‐adherent to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. During 2007‐2013, 116 patients with moderate (n = 82) and severe (n = 34) OSA non‐adherent to CPAP treatment were referred for dental management with an individually adjusted OA at a specialist sleep clinic. Ten of the participants (8·6%) were lost to follow‐up, leaving the data set to consist of 106 patients (71 men/35 women, mean age 57 year, range 28‐90). Nocturnal respiratory polygraphic recordings were performed at baseline and follow‐up. Average time between baseline polygraphy and follow‐up was 12 months. A successful OA treatment outcome was based on polygraphy at the follow‐up and divided into three groups: 1 = AHI <5; 2 = 5 ≤ AHI <10 and >50% reduction in baseline AHI; and 3. >50% reduction in baseline AHI. If there was a ≤ 50% reduction in baseline AHI at the follow‐up, the treatment was considered as a failure. The overall treatment success rate was 75%. There was no significant difference in success rates between patients in the moderate and severe categories (69% and 77%, respectively). Low oxygen saturation (SpO(2 nadir)) had a high predictive value for OA treatment failure. OA treatment of patients non‐adherent to CPAP is efficient and especially promising for the severe OSA group who are at greatest risks for developing serious comorbidities, if left untreated. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-12-27 2016-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4834725/ /pubmed/26707632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joor.12376 Text en © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Gjerde, K.
Lehmann, S.
Berge, M. E.
Johansson, A.‐K.
Johansson, A.
Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non‐adherent to CPAP
title Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non‐adherent to CPAP
title_full Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non‐adherent to CPAP
title_fullStr Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non‐adherent to CPAP
title_full_unstemmed Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non‐adherent to CPAP
title_short Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non‐adherent to CPAP
title_sort oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non‐adherent to cpap
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4834725/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26707632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joor.12376
work_keys_str_mv AT gjerdek oralappliancetreatmentinmoderateandsevereobstructivesleepapnoeapatientsnonadherenttocpap
AT lehmanns oralappliancetreatmentinmoderateandsevereobstructivesleepapnoeapatientsnonadherenttocpap
AT bergeme oralappliancetreatmentinmoderateandsevereobstructivesleepapnoeapatientsnonadherenttocpap
AT johanssonak oralappliancetreatmentinmoderateandsevereobstructivesleepapnoeapatientsnonadherenttocpap
AT johanssona oralappliancetreatmentinmoderateandsevereobstructivesleepapnoeapatientsnonadherenttocpap