A Randomized Crossover Study of an Oral Appliance vs Nasal-Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in the Treatment of Mild-Moderate Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Current principles in the management of obstructive sleep apnoea with mandibular advancement appliances

“…[16][17][18][19] Two of these compared the use of a mandibular advancement splint with nasal CPAP 16,17 and concluded that the MAS achieved substantial success (45% reduction in AHI score), but were less effective …”

Effectiveness of Oral Appliances in Obstructive Sleep Apnea with Respiratory Arousals

“…24 A crossover study between OA and CPAP reported that OA is effective for OSA, especially for mild to moderate cases, and that they are associated with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction than CPAP. 23 Another similar crossover study reported higher compliance with an OA, and thereby a greater reduction of oxidative stress and diastolic blood pressure, compared to CPAP. 25 The Cochrane Review concludes that responders to both CPAP and an OA expressed a strong preference for the OA.…”

“…CPAP is a highly effective treatment, but it also has a limited adherence of 50% to 80% in long term, and patients with mild symptoms have been found to be most likely to discontinue treatment. 23 The treatment of the SDB subgroup UARS is not well documented. CPAP was used in the initial report by Guilleminault et al 4 and showed shortterm upper airway widening during sleep, but long-term prescription had variable success.…”

Efficiency of Mandibular Advancement Device and Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure Treatment for Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea

“…4,[7][8][9][10][11] Although CPAP is proved to be more efficient in treatment, it is not tolerated well by patients; therefore, intraoral appliances are frequently preferred 3,5,[12][13][14][15][16] as in this patient. Treatment success is commonly defined by a reduction in RDI to <5 or <10 in addition to a <50% reduction in baseline RDI.…”