Mandibular advancement devices vs nasal-continuous positive airway pressure in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea. Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a common disorder that may affect at least 2 to 4% of the adult population. Nasal-Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (N-CPAP) is today considered the gold standard for the treatment of OSA. The development of oral appliances (OAs) represents a new approach for the management of this pathology. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy of OAs and N-CPAP in the treatment of patients with mild to severe OSA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A PubMed-MEDLINE and Cochrane databases search of articles published between 1982 and 2016 comparing the effect of N-CPAP and OAs in OSA patients was conducted during July 2016. The studies were selected and stratified according to PRISMA and SORT criteria. The main outcome measure was post-treatment Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI) while secondary outcomes included post-treatment Epworth Score Scale (ESS) score and lowest Oxygen Saturation level. RESULTS: N-CPAP was significantly more effective in suppressing AHI than OA. Moreover, N- CPAP was significantly more effective in increasing post-treatment lowest Oxygen Saturation level than OA. However, no significant different in decreasing ESS values was found between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of evidence in this review it would appear appropriate to offer OA therapy to those who are unwilling or unable to persist with CPAP therapy. N-CPAP still must be considered the gold standard treatment for OSA and, therefore, OAs may be included in the list of alternative options. Key words:CPAP, obstructive sleep apnoea, oral appliances.