Summary  The management of bruxism has been the subject of a large number of studies. A PubMed search, using relevant MeSH terms, yielded a total of 177 papers that were published over the past 40 years. Of these papers, 135 were used for the present review. Apparently, research into bruxism management is sensitive to fashion. Interest in studying the role of occlusal interventions and oral splints in the treatment of bruxism remained more or less constant over the years: between 1966 and 2007, approximately 40–60% of the papers dealt with this subject. The percentage of papers that dealt with behavioural approaches, on the other hand, declined from >60% in the first 2 decades (1966–1986) to only slightly >10% in the most recent decade (1997–2007). In the latter period, >40% of the papers studied the role of various medicines in the treatment of bruxism, while in the preceding decade (1987–1996), only approximately 5% of the studies dealt with the pharmacological management of bruxism. Unfortunately, a vast majority of the 135 papers have a too low level of evidence. Only 13% of the studies used a randomized clinical trial design, and even these trials do not yet provide clinicians with strong, evidence‐based recommendations for the treatment of bruxism. Hence, there is a vast need for well‐designed studies. Clinicians should be aware of this striking paucity of evidence regarding management of bruxism.

Background: Previous randomized controlled trials have addressed the efficacy of mandibular advancement devices (MADs) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Their common control condition, nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP), was frequently found to be superior to MAD therapy. However, in most of these studies, only nCPAP was titrated objectively but not MAD. To enable an unbiased comparison between both treatment modalities, the MAD should be titrated objectively as well. Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the treatment effects of a titrated MAD with those of nCPAP and an intra-oral placebo device. Methods: Sixty-four mild/moderate patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA; 52.0 ± 9.6 years) were randomly assigned to three parallel groups: MAD, nCPAP and placebo device. From all patients, two polysomnographic recordings were obtained at the hospital: one before treatment and one after approximately 6 months of treatment. Results: The change in the apnea-hypopnea index (ΔAHI) between baseline and therapy evaluation differed significantly between the three therapy groups (ANCOVA; p = 0.000). No differences in the ΔAHI were found between the MAD and nCPAP therapy (p = 0.092), whereas the changes in AHI in these groups were significantly larger than those in the placebo group (p = 0.000 and 0.002, respectively). Conclusion: There is no clinically relevant difference between MAD and nCPAP in the treatment of mild/moderate OSA when both treatment modalities are titrated objectively.

The aim of the study was to assess the influence of four mandibular protrusion positions, at a constant vertical dimension, on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Seventeen OSA patients (49.2 +/- 8.5 years) received an adjustable mandibular advancement device (MAD). The patients underwent four polysomnographic recordings with their MAD in situ at, in random order, 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% of the maximum protrusion. The mean apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) values of the patients differed significantly between the protrusion positions (P < 0.000). The 25% protrusion position resulted in a significant reduction of the AHI with respect to the 0% position, while in the 50% and 75% positions, even lower AHI values were found. The number of side effects was larger starting at the 50% protrusion position. We therefore recommend coming to a weighted compromise between efficacy and side effects by starting a MAD treatment in the 50% protrusion position.

Background: Long-term trials are needed to capture information regarding the persistence of efficacy and loss to follow-up of both mandibular advancement device (MAD) therapy and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare these treatment aspects between MAD and nasal CPAP (nCPAP) in a 1-year follow-up. Methods:Forty-three mild/moderate obstructive sleep apnea patients (52.2 ± 9.6 years) with a mean apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 20.8 ± 9.9 events/h were randomly assigned to two parallel groups: MAD (n = 21) and nCPAP (n = 22). Four polysomnographic recordings were obtained: one before treatment, one for the short-term evaluation, and two recordings 6 and 12 months after the short-term evaluation. Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) was also evaluated at the polysomnographic recordings. Results: The initially achieved improvements in the AHI remained stable over time within both groups (p = 0.650). In the nCPAP group, the AHI improved 4.1 events/h more than in the MAD group (p = 0.000). The EDS values showed a gradual improvement over time (p = 0.000), and these improvements were similar for both groups (p = 0.367). In the nCPAP group, more patients withdrew from treatment due to side effects than in the MAD group. Conclusions: The absence of significant long-term differences in EDS improvements between the MAD and the nCPAP groups with mild/moderate obstructive sleep apnea may indicate that the larger improvements in AHI values in the nCPAP group are not clinically relevant. Moreover, nCPAP patients may show more problems in accepting their treatment modality than MAD patients.

No abstract