Send to

Choose Destination
J Oral Rehabil. 2012 Dec;39(12):914-22. doi: 10.1111/joor.12006. Epub 2012 Sep 27.

A randomised titrated crossover study comparing two oral appliances in the treatment for mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome.

Author information

Department of Orthodontics, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.


The objective of this study was to compare the efficiency of two oral appliances in patients with mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnoea/hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS) by the analysis of objective and subjective evaluations and measurement of upper airway parameter. A randomised crossover design trial was carried out on 16 patients with OSAHS. Two different types of oral appliances were tested in each patient, a one-piece monoblock and the SILENT NITE(®) (GlideWell Laboratories, Newport Beach, CA, USA), a two-piece appliance. Each oral appliance needed to be worn for two 3-month periods separated by a 2-week wash-out period in between. The objective and subjective efficiency and upper airway parameters associated with the oral appliances were assessed. One-way analysis of variance (anova) test was performed to compare the changes in upper airway morphology and the treatment efficiency between the appliances. The monoblock and SILENT NITE(®) (GlideWell Laboratories) appliances reduced Apnoea Hypopnoea Index (AHI) from 26·38 ± 4·13 to 7·58 ± 2·28 (P < 0·001) and 8·87 ± 2·88 (P < 0·001), respectively. The monoblock appliance was statistically more efficient in reducing AHI and Apnoea Index (AI) than the SILENT NITE(®) (GlideWell Laboratories) (P < 0·05). The scores on Epworth's Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and Snoring Scale (SS) were improved significantly by both appliances. The upper airway spaces showed considerable enlargement by both mandibular advancement appliances (MAAs) (P < 0·05), while no significant differences were found between the two appliances (P > 0·05). Both MAAs showed good efficacy in the treatment for mild to moderate OSAHS. Use of the monoblock appliance should be considered when patients with OSAHS choose MAA treatment, as it was more efficient in reducing the AHI and AI compared to the two-piece appliance and was preferred by most patients. Long-term efficiency should be evaluated in future prospective studies.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center