It has recently been suggested that wearing a maxillary occlusal splint (i.e. a hard acrylic resin dental appliance that covers the occlusal surfaces of the maxillary dentition and that is being indicated for the treatment of, e.g. temporomandibular pain) may be associated with a risk of aggravating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). The present study tested the hypothesis that raising the bite without mandibular protrusion in OSA patients is associated with an increase in the apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI). Eighteen OSA patients (13 men; 49·5 ± 8·1 years old) received a mandibular advancement device in 0% protrusion of the mandible (0%MAD). The MAD caused a bite rise of 6 mm as measured interincisally. Polysomnographic recordings were obtained at baseline and with the 0%MAD in situ. No statistically significant difference in AHI was noted between the baseline night and the 0%MAD night. However, nine patients had an aggravation in AHI during the night they used the 0%MAD. Taking into account the previously established smallest detectable difference of 12·8 in AHI, the AHI increased in only two of the patients. The outcomes of this study suggest that an increased jaw gape without mandibular protrusion might be associated with a risk of aggravation of OSA for some, but not for all OSA patients. Dental practitioners should be aware of this possible association when treating patients with oral devices that raise the bite.

No abstract

Purpose To assess the differences in the frequency of clinical signs of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain and mandibular function impairment between mandibular advancement device (MAD) and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) therapies in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients at baseline and after 6 month of treatment. Methods This study concerns a secondary analysis of a randomized placebo‐controlled trial in which different treatment effects of an objectively titrated MAD were compared with those of nCPAP and an intra‐oral placebo appliance in a parallel design. Sixty‐four mild to severe OSA patients (52.0 ± 9.6 years) were randomly assigned to these three groups. All patients underwent a shortened functional examination of their masticatory system at baseline and after 6 months to establish the presence of clinical signs of TMD pain. Mandibular function impairment was assessed with a questionnaire. Results Clinical signs of TMD pain were only rarely present at baseline and therapy evaluation. No significant differences were found between the three groups in the (low) frequency of clinical signs of TMD pain at both time points (p = .401–.176). In addition, the (low) scores of mandibular function impairment did not differ between the three groups either, neither at baseline (p = .744) nor after 6 months (p = .359). Conclusions A low frequency of clinical signs of TMD pain in mild to severe OSA patients was found after 6 months, regardless of treatment with MAD or nCPAP. In addition, no difference in mandibular function impairment was observed between the different treatment modalities.

ObjectivesThe aim of this randomized placebo-controlled trail was to compare the effects of an objectively titrated mandibular advancement device (MAD) with those of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) and an intraoral placebo device on symptoms of psychological distress in OSA patients.Materials and methodsIn a parallel design, 64 mild/moderate OSA patients (52.0 ± 9.6 years) were randomly assigned to an objectively titrated MAD, nCPAP, or an intraoral placebo appliance. All patients filled out the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised twice: one before treatment and one after 6 months of treatment. The Symptom Checklist-90-Revised is a multidimensional symptom inventory designed to measure symptomatic psychological distress over the past week. Linear mixed model analyses were performed to study differences between the therapy groups for the different dimensions of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised over time.ResultsThe MAD group showed significant improvements over time in the dimensions “somatization,” “insufficiency of thinking and acting,” “agoraphobia,” “anxiety,” “sleeping problems,” and “global severity index” (F = 4.14–16.73, P = 0.048–0.000). These improvements in symptoms of psychological distress were, however, not significantly different from those observed in the nCPAP and placebo groups (P = 0.374–0.953).ConclusionThere is no significant difference between MAD, nCPAP, and an intraoral placebo appliance in their beneficial effects on symptoms of psychological distress.Clinical relevanceThe improvement in psychological distress symptoms in mild/moderate OSA patients under MAD or nCPAP treatment may be explained by a placebo effect.

Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) is associated with several sleep disorders and sleep-related problems. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of a mandibular advancement device (MAD) with those of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) on self-reported symptoms of common sleep disorders and sleep-related problems in mild and moderate OSAS patients. In this randomised placebo-controlled trial, sixty-four OSAS patients (52·0 ± 9·6 years) were randomly assigned to an MAD, nCPAP or an intra-oral placebo appliance in a parallel design. All participants filled out the validated Dutch Sleep Disorders Questionnaire (SDQ) twice: one before treatment and one after six months of treatment. With 88 questions, thirteen scales were constructed, representing common sleep disorders and sleep-related problems. Linear mixed model analyses were performed to study differences between the groups for the different SDQ scales over time. The MAD group showed significant improvements over time in symptoms corresponding with 'insomnia', 'excessive daytime sleepiness', 'psychiatric sleep disorder', 'periodic limb movements', 'sleep apnoea', 'sleep paralysis', 'daytime dysfunction', 'hypnagogic hallucinations/dreaming', 'restless sleep', 'negative conditioning' and 'automatic behaviour' (range of P values: 0·000-0·014). These improvements in symptoms were, however, not significantly different from the improvements in symptoms observed in the nCPAP and placebo groups (range of P values: 0·090-0·897). It can be concluded that there is no significant difference between MAD and nCPAP in their positive effects on self-reported symptoms of common sleep disorders and sleep-related problems in mild and moderate OSAS patients. These beneficial effects may be a result of placebo effects.

The use of UV lasers, under a tight control of its energy, may be a valuable tool for the treatment of periodontal diseases, especially combined with the use of healing products. Further study is need to confirm these results.