Long-term oral appliance therapy in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a controlled study on temporomandibular side effects

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Snoring with Oral Appliance Therapy: An Update for 2015

INTRODUCTION

Since the previous parameter and review paper publication on oral appliances (OAs) in 2006, the relevant scientific literature has grown considerably, particularly in relation to clinical outcomes. The purpose of this new guideline is to replace the previous and update recommendations for the use of OAs in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and snoring.

METHODS

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine (AADSM) commissioned a seven-member task force. A systematic review of the literature was performed and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the quality of evidence. The task force developed recommendations and assigned strengths based on the quality of the evidence counterbalanced by an assessment of the relative benefit of the treatment versus the potential harms. The AASM and AADSM Board of Directors approved the final guideline recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. We recommend that sleep physicians prescribe oral appliances, rather than no therapy, for adult patients who request treatment of primary snoring (without obstructive sleep apnea). (STANDARD) 2. When oral appliance therapy is prescribed by a sleep physician for an adult patient with obstructive sleep apnea, we suggest that a qualified dentist use a custom, titratable appliance over non-custom oral devices. (GUIDELINE) 3. We recommend that sleep physicians consider prescription of oral appliances, rather than no treatment, for adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea who are intolerant of CPAP therapy or prefer alternate therapy. (STANDARD) 4. We suggest that qualified dentists provide oversight—rather than no follow-up—of oral appliance therapy in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea, to survey for dental-related side effects or occlusal changes and reduce their incidence. (GUIDELINE) 5. We suggest that sleep physicians conduct follow-up sleep testing to improve or confirm treatment efficacy, rather than conduct follow-up without sleep testing, for patients fitted with oral appliances. (GUIDELINE) 6. We suggest that sleep physicians and qualified dentists instruct adult patients treated with oral appliances for obstructive sleep apnea to return for periodic office visits—as opposed to no follow-up—with a qualified dentist and a sleep physician. (GUIDELINE).

CONCLUSIONS

The AASM and AADSM expect these guidelines to have a positive impact on professional behavior, patient outcomes, and, possibly, health care costs. This guideline reflects the state of knowledge at the time of publication and will require updates if new evidence warrants significant changes to the current recommendations.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results from the randomised controlled Trial of Oral Mandibular Advancement Devices for Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO) and long-term economic analysis of oral devices and continuous positive airway pressure

BACKGROUND

Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH) causes excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), impairs quality of life (QoL) and increases cardiovascular disease and road traffic accident risks. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment is clinically effective but undermined by intolerance, and its cost-effectiveness is borderline in milder cases. Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are another option, but evidence is lacking regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in milder disease.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MADs against no treatment in mild to moderate OSAH. (2) Update systematic reviews and an existing health economic decision model with data from the Trial of Oral Mandibular Advancement Devices for Obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO) and newly published results to better inform long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MADs and CPAP in mild to moderate OSAH.

TOMADO

A crossover RCT comparing clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three MADs: self-moulded [SleepPro 1™ (SP1); Meditas Ltd, Winchester, UK]; semibespoke [SleepPro 2™ (SP2); Meditas Ltd, Winchester, UK]; and fully bespoke [bespoke MAD (bMAD); NHS Oral-Maxillofacial Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK] against no treatment, in 90 adults with mild to moderate OSAH. All devices improved primary outcome [apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI)] compared with no treatment: relative risk 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.89] for SP1; relative risk 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.76) for SP2; and relative risk 0.64 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.76) for bMAD (p < 0.001). Differences between MADs were not significant. Sleepiness [as measured by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS)] was scored 1.51 [95% CI 0.73 to 2.29 (SP1)] to 2.37 [95% CI 1.53 to 3.22 (bMAD)] lower than no treatment (p < 0.001), with SP2 and bMAD significantly better than SP1. All MADs improved disease-specific QoL. Compliance was lower for SP1, which was unpopular at trial exit. At 4 weeks, all devices were cost-effective at £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with SP2 the best value below £39,800/QALY.

META-ANALYSIS

A MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index search updating two existing systematic reviews (one from November 2006 and the other from June 2008) to August 2013 identified 77 RCTs in adult OSAH patients comparing MAD with conservative management (CM), MADs with CPAP or CPAP with CM. MADs and CPAP significantly improved AHI [MAD -9.3/hour (p < 0.001); CPAP -25.4/hour (p < 0.001)]. Effect difference between CPAP and MADs was 7.0/hour (p < 0.001), favouring CPAP. No trials compared CPAP with MADs in mild OSAH. MAD and CPAP reduced the ESS score similarly [MAD 1.6 (p < 0.001); CPAP 1.6 (p < 0.001)].

LONG-TERM COST-EFFECTIVENESS

An existing model assessed lifetime cost-utility of MAD and CPAP in mild to moderate OSAH, using the revised meta-analysis to update input values. The TOMADO provided utility estimates, mapping ESS score to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version for device cost-utility. Using SP2 as the standard device, MADs produced higher mean costs and mean QALYs than CM [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) £6687/QALY]. From a willingness to pay (WTP) of £15,367/QALY, CPAP is cost-effective, although the likelihood of MADs (p = 0.48) and CPAP (p = 0.49) being cost-effective is very similar. Both were better than CM, but there was much uncertainty in the choice between CPAP and MAD (at a WTP £20,000/QALY, the probability of being the most cost-effective was 47% for MAD and 52% for CPAP). When SP2 lifespan increased to 18 months, the ICER for CPAP compared with MAD became £44,066. The ICER for SP1 compared with CM was £1552, and for bMAD compared with CM the ICER was £13,836. The ICER for CPAP compared with SP1 was £89,182, but CPAP produced lower mean costs and higher mean QALYs than bMAD. Differential compliance rates for CPAP reduces cost-effectiveness so MADs become less costly and more clinically effective with CPAP compliance 90% of SP2.

CONCLUSIONS

Mandibular advancement devices are clinically effective and cost-effective in mild to moderate OSAH. A semi-bespoke MAD is the appropriate first choice in most patients in the short term. Future work should explore whether or not adjustable MADs give additional clinical and cost benefits. Further data on longer-term cardiovascular risk and its risk factors would reduce uncertainty in the health economic model and improve precision of effectiveness estimates.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN02309506.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sleep in older adults: normative changes, sleep disorders, and treatment options

Approximately 5% of older adults meet criteria for clinically significant insomnia disorders and 20% for sleep apnea syndromes. It is important to distinguish age-appropriate changes in sleep from clinically significant insomnia, with the latter having associated daytime impairments. Non-pharmacologic therapies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, can be highly effective with sustained benefit. Pharmacologic therapies are also available, but may be associated with psychomotor effects. A high index of suspicion is crucial for effective diagnosis of sleep apnea because symptoms commonly noted in younger patients, such as obesity or loud snoring, may not be present in older patients.

Clinical guidelines for oral appliance therapy in the treatment of snoring and obstructive sleep apnoea

The purpose of this review is to provide guidelines for the use of oral appliances (OAs) for the treatment of snoring and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in Australia. A review of the scientific literature up to June 2012 regarding the clinical use of OAs in the treatment of snoring and OSA was undertaken by a dental and medical sleep specialists team consisting of respiratory sleep physicians, an otolaryngologist, orthodontist, oral and maxillofacial surgeon and an oral medicine specialist. The recommendations are based on the most recent evidence from studies obtained from peer reviewed literature. Oral appliances can be an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of snoring and OSA across a broad range of disease severity. However, the response to therapy is variable. While a significant proportion of subjects have a near complete control of the apnoea and snoring when using an OA, a significant proportion do not respond, and others show a partial response. Measurements of baseline and treatment success should ideally be undertaken. A coordinated team approach between medical practitioner and dentist should be fostered to enhance treatment outcomes. Ongoing patient follow-up to monitor treatment efficacy, OA comfort and side effects are cardinal to long-term treatment success and OA compliance.

Oral appliance treatment for obstructive sleep apnea: an update

Oral appliances (OA) have emerged as an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treatment. The most commonly used OA reduces upper airway collapse by advancing the mandible (OAm). There is a strong evidence base demonstrating OAm improve OSA in the majority of patients, including some with more severe disease. However OAm are not efficacious for all, with approximately one-third of patients experiencing no therapeutic benefit. OAm are generally well tolerated, although short-term adverse effects during acclimatization are common. Long-term dental changes do occur, but these are for the most part subclinical and do not preclude continued use. Patients often prefer OAm to gold-standard CPAP treatment. Head-to-head trials confirm CPAP is superior in reducing OSA parameters on polysomnography; however, this greater efficacy does not necessarily translate into better health outcomes in clinical practice. Comparable effectiveness of OAm and CPAP has been attributed to higher reported nightly use of OAm, suggesting that inferiority in reducing apneic events may be counteracted by greater treatment adherence. Recently, significant advances in commercially available OAm technologies have been made. Remotely controlled mandibular positioners have the potential to identify treatment responders and the level of therapeutic advancement required in single night titration polysomnography. Objective monitoring of OAm adherence using small embedded temperature sensing data loggers is now available and will enhance clinical practice and research. These technologies will further enhance efficacy and effectiveness of OAm treatment for OSA.

Are we missing a simple treatment for most adult sleep apnea patients? The avoidance of the supine sleep position

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep disorder which has been gradually accepted as an important cause of increased morbidity and mortality. The treatment of moderate-severe OSA has improved dramatically since the introduction of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices; however, the adherence of patients to CPAP treatment is relatively low. Adherence appears to be even worse in patients with mild or asymptomatic OSA. The failure to identify and treat mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic OSA patients may be costly, as such patients comprise about 20% of the general adult population. OSA patients could be divided into positional and non-positional patients. Positional patients show most of their breathing abnormalities while sleeping in the supine position. Simply, by sleeping in the lateral postures, they eliminate or reduce significantly the number of apneas and hypopneas. On the contrary, non-positional patients suffer from breathing abnormalities in the supine and lateral postures, and as a consequence those are the most severe OSA patients for whom CPAP is the treatment of choice. In this paper we intend to argue that positional therapy, i.e., avoidance of the supine posture during sleep, could represent a valuable therapy mainly for mild-moderate OSA. Considering the fact that the vast majority of mild-moderate OSA patients are positional patients (between 65 and 87%), positional therapy may be a simple, cheap and effective solution for them. High-quality research regarding this issue is needed to evaluate the real effectiveness of this mode of therapy.

Oral appliance versus continuous positive airway pressure in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a 2-year follow-up

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Oral appliance therapy has emerged as an important alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in treating patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). In this study we report about the subjective and objective treatment outcome of oral appliance therapy and CPAP in patients with OSAS.

DESIGN

Cohort study of a previously conducted randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

University Medical Center, Groningen, The Netherlands.

PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS

One hundred three patients with OSAS.

INTERVENTIONS

CPAP and oral appliance therapy (Thornton Adjustable Positioner type-1, Airway Management, Inc., Dallas, TX, USA).

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Objective (polysomnography) and subjective (Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) parameters were assessed after 1 and 2 years of treatment. Treatment was considered successful when the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was < 5 or showed substantial reduction, defined as reduction in the index of at least 50% from the baseline value to a value of < 20 in a patient without OSAS symptoms while undergoing therapy. Regarding the proportions of successful treatments, no significant difference was found between oral appliance therapy and CPAP in treating mild to severe OSAS in a 2-year follow-up. More patients (not significant) dropped out under oral appliance therapy (47%) compared with CPAP (33%). Both therapies showed substantial improvements in polysomnographic and neurobehavioral outcomes. However, CPAP was more effective in lowering the AHI and showed higher oxyhemoglobin saturation levels compared to oral appliance therapy (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral appliance therapy should be considered as a viable treatment alternative to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). In patients with severe OSAS, CPAP remains the treatment of first choice.

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

The original randomized clinical trial, of which this study is a 2-year follow-up, is registered at ISRCTN.org; identifier: ISRCTN18174167; trial name: Management of the obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome: oral appliance versus continuous positive airway pressure therapy; URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN18174167.

Effect of mandibular advancement device therapy on the signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders

Objectives

Mandibular advancement device therapy is effectively used in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea, but also several side effects in the masticatory system have been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the subjective symptoms and clinical signs of temporomandibular disorders connected to mandibular advancement device therapy.

Material and Methods

The material consisted of 15 patients (9 men and 6 women, mean age 51.1 years, range 21 to 70 years) diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Subjective symptoms and clinical temporomandibular disorders (TMD) signs were recorded at the beginning of the treatment (baseline) and at 1-month, 3-month, 6-month and 24-month follow-ups. The degree of TMD was assessed using the anamnestic (Ai) and the clinical dysfunction index (Di) of Helkimo. For assessing the effect of TMD the patients were divided in discontinuing and continuing groups.

Results

According to Ai and Di, the severity of TMD remained unchanged during the follow-up in most of the patients. Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) crepitation was found more frequently in discontinuing patients at all follow-ups. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05) at the six-month follow-up. Masticatory muscle pain during palpation was a frequent clinical sign at the baseline and during the follow-up period but the difference between discontinuing and continuing patients was not significant.

Conclusions

It seems that signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders do not necessarily increase during long-term mandibular advancement device therapy. However, it seems that patients with clinically assessed temporomandibular joint crepitation may discontinue their mandibular advancement device therapy due to temporomandibular disorders.

Efficacy of the Silensor for treating obstructive sleep apnea syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Although mandibular repositioning devices were found to be very effective for treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSAS), they can cause side effects such as temporomandibular joint disorder and occlusal deviation. A semi-rigid device with a low frequency of side effects, the Silensor, (Erkodent Gmbh, Tuttlingen, Germany) was reported previously. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the Silensor is effective for treating OSAS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-five OSAS patients (27 males and 8 females) who were treated with the Silensor were enrolled in this study. The mean age and body mass index of the patients were 52.2 years (23-72 years) and 24.5 kg/m(2) (19.3-31.6 kg/m(2)), respectively. The patients were classified into two groups based on the length of the apparatus connector: 0-2 or 3-4 mm. A polysomnography test was performed twice, at the first visit and after the improvement of subjective symptoms. These data were statistically analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

The apnea-hypopnea index significantly improved in all OSAS patients, the mild to moderate OSAS patients, severe OSAS patients, 0- to 2-mm group, and the 3- to 4-mm group (91.4 %; p < 0.01, 88.9 %; p < 0.01, 100 %; p < 0.05, 86.4 %; p < 0.01, 100 %; p < 0.01, respectively). The only side effects of the Silensor were broken apparatus and damage to the buccal mucosa.

DISCUSSION

The Silensor is useful for the treatment of OSAS. In particular, the Silensor is suitable for the first phase of OSAS treatment with oral appliances because the efficacy of the Silensor was equal to that of other oral appliances and had few side effects.

Long-term oral appliance therapy in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a controlled study on dental side effects

Objectives

This study aimed to assess possible dental side effects associated with long-term use of an adjustable oral appliance compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in patients with the obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and to study the relationship between these possible side effects and the degree of mandibular protrusion associated with oral appliance therapy.

Materials and methods

As part of a previously conducted RCT, 51 patients were randomized to oral appliance therapy and 52 patients to CPAP therapy. At baseline and after a 2-year follow-up, dental plaster study models in full occlusion were obtained which were thereupon analyzed with respect to relevant variables.

Results

Long-term use of an oral appliance resulted in small but significant dental changes compared with CPAP. In the oral appliance group, overbite and overjet decreased 1.2 (±1.1) mm and 1.5 (±1.5) mm, respectively. Furthermore, we found a significantly larger anterior–posterior change in the occlusion (−1.3 ± 1.5 mm) in the oral appliance group compared to the CPAP group (−0.1 ± 0.6 mm). Moreover, both groups showed a significant decrease in number of occlusal contact points in the (pre)molar region. Linear regression analysis revealed that the decrease in overbite was associated with the mean mandibular protrusion during follow-up [regression coefficient (β) = −0.02, 95 % confidence interval (−0.04 to −0.00)].

Conclusions

Oral appliance therapy should be considered as a lifelong treatment, and there is a risk of dental side effects to occur.

Clinical relevance

Patients treated with the oral appliance need a thorough follow-up by a dentist or dental-specialist experienced in the field of dental sleep medicine.