Oral appliances (OAs) have demonstrated efficacy in treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but many different OA devices are available. The Japanese Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine supported the use of OAs that advanced the mandible forward and limited mouth opening and suggested an evaluation of their effects in comparison with untreated or CPAP. A systematic search was undertaken in 16 April 2012. The outcome measures of interest were as follows: Apnea Hypopnea Index (AHI), lowest SpO2 , arousal index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the SF-36 Health Survey. We performed this meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Five studies remained eligible after applying the exclusion criteria. Comparing OA and control appliance, OA significantly reduced the weighted mean difference (WMD) in both AHI and the arousal index (favouring OA, AHI: -7.05 events h(-1) ; 95% CI, -12.07 to -2.03; P = 0.006, arousal index: -6.95 events h(-1) ; 95% CI, -11.75 to -2.15; P = 0.005). OAs were significantly less effective at reducing the WMD in AHI and improving lowest SpO2 and SF-36 than CPAP, (favouring OA, AHI: 6.11 events h(-1) ; 95% CI, 3.24 to 8.98; P = 0.0001, lowest SpO2 : -2.52%; 95% CI, -4.81 to -0.23; P = 0.03, SF-36: -1.80; 95% CI, -3.17 to -042; P = 0.01). Apnea Hypopnea Index and arousal index were significantly improved by OA relative to the untreated disease. Apnea Hypopnea Index, lowest SpO2 and SF-36 were significantly better with CPAP than with OA. The results of this study suggested that OAs improve OSA compared with untreated. CPAP appears to be more effective in improving OSA than OAs.

The objective of this study was to determine the utility of nasoendoscopy of the upper airway as a predictor of the efficacy of oral appliance treatment in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA).A total of 61 consecutive patients with moderate-to-severe polysomnographically diagnosed OSA were recruited for this study. Using nasoendoscopy, we prospectively assessed the velopharynx and oro/hypopharynx in each patient while awake and in the supine position. We measured cross-sectional area (CSA), and anteroposterior and lateral diameters of the airway before and after mandibular advancement, and expressed the changes in dimensions as expansion ratios (after/before). We then compared the measurements of responders and nonresponders with oral appliance treatment.The expansion ratio (median (interquartile range)) for the CSA was greater in responders compared with nonresponders in the velopharynx (2.9 (2.3-5.0) versus 1.7 (1.5-1.9), p<0.001) and in the oro/hypopharynx (3.4 (2.5-5.6) versus 2.4 (1.8-3.7), p<0.05). Baseline apnoea-hypopnoea index and the CSA expansion ratio of the velopharynx were independent predictors of oral appliance treatment outcome based on a multivariate logistic regression analysis. The estimated area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.87 and the cut-off value of the expansion ratio was 2.00.These results indicate that nasoendoscopy may have significant clinical utility in predicting the success of oral appliance treatment.

(1) Concerning indications for OA therapy, findings in the velopharynx rather than those in the hypopharynx may be important. (2) The effects of OA therapy can be expected in the presence of velopharyngeal widening irrespective of its direction. Thus, to determine whether OA therapy is indicated, endoscopic evaluation of morphological changes in the velopharynx with mandibular advancement may be important.

No abstract

The velopharynx closes during swallowing and pneumatic activities. Pneumatic closure, which is acquired, prevents expiratory air from passing into the nasal cavity, whereas during swallowing, velopharyngeal closure is achieved innately, preventing regurgitation into the nasal cavity. These findings suggest that velopharyngeal closure during swallowing is a different mechanism from that during pneumatic activity. The purpose of this study was to clarify activity differences of the levator veli palatini muscle during swallowing, speech, and blowing using power spectra analysis. Five normal adults served as subjects. Each subject was instructed to speak, blow, and swallow. Electromyograms of the levator muscle were recorded and the spectrum analyzed for each task to calculate the mean power frequency (MPF) of EMG signals. There was no significant difference in MPF between speech and blowing for all subjects. MPF was significantly greater during swallowing than during pneumatic activities for all subjects. The MPF value can reflect the composition of active motor units during muscle contraction. It was therefore indicated that the motor units of the levator muscle participating in contraction were different during swallowing and respiratory activities.