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

Obstructive sleep apnoea is associated with raised blood pressure. If blood pressure can be reduced by nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP), such treatment could reduce risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea. Our aim was to see whether nCPAP for sleep apnoea reduces blood pressure compared with the most robust control intervention subtherapeutic nCPAP. We did a randomised parallel trial to compare change in blood pressure in 118 men with obstructive sleep apnoea (Epworth score > 9, and a > 4% oxygen desaturation index of > 10 per h) who were assigned to either therapeutic (n=59) or subtherapeutic (59) nCPAP (about 1 cm H(2)O pressure) for 1 month. The primary outcome was the change in 24-h mean blood pressure. Secondary outcomes were changes in systolic, diastolic, sleep, and wake blood pressure, and relations between blood pressure changes, baseline blood pressure, and severity of sleep apnoea. Therapeutic nCPAP reduced mean arterial ambulatory blood pressure by 2.5 mm Hg (SE 0.8), whereas subtherapeutic nCPAP increased blood pressure by 0.8 mm Hg (0.7) (difference -3.3 [95% CI -5.3 to -1.3]; p=0.0013, unpaired t test). This benefit was seen in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and during both sleep and wake. The benefit was larger in patients with more severe sleep apnoea than those who had less severe apnoea, but was independent of the baseline blood pressure. The benefit was especially large in patients taking drug treatment for blood pressure. In patients with most severe sleep apnoea, nCPAP reduces blood pressure, providing significant vascular risk benefits, and substantially improving excessive daytime sleepiness and quality of life.

Although oral appliances are effective in some patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), they are not universally effective. A novel anterior mandibular positioner (AMP) has been developed with an adjustable hinge that allows progressive advancement of the mandible. The objective of this prospective crossover study was to compare efficacy, side effects, patient compliance, and preference between AMP and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) in patients with symptomatic mild to moderate OSA. Twenty four patients of mean (SD) age 44.0 (10.6) years were recruited with a mean (SD) body mass index of 32.0 (8.2) kg/m2, Epworth sleepiness score 10.7 (3.4), and apnoea/hypopnoea index 26.8 (11.9)/hour. There was a two week wash-in and a two week wash-out period and two treatment periods (AMP and nCPAP) each of four months. Efficacy, side effects, compliance, and preference were evaluated by a questionnaire and home sleep monitoring. One patient dropped out early in the study and three refused to cross over so treatment results are presented on the remaining 20 patients. The apnoea/hypopnoea index (AHI) was lower with nasal CPAP 4.2 (2.2)/hour than with the AMP 13.6 (14.5)/hour (p < 0.01). Eleven of the 20 patients (55%) who used the AMP were treatment successes (reduction of AHI to < 10/hour and relief of symptoms), one (5%) was a compliance failure (unable or unwilling to use the treatment), and eight (40%) were treatment failures (failure to reduce AHI to < 10/hour and/or failure to relieve symptoms). Fourteen of the 20 patients (70%) who used nCPAP were treatment successes, six (30%) were compliance failures, and there were no treatment failures. There was greater patient satisfaction with the AMP (p < 0.01) than with nCPAP but no difference in reported side effects or compliance. AMP is an effective treatment in some patients with mild to moderate OSA and is associated with greater patient satisfaction than nCPAP.