Review of oral appliances for treatment of sleep-disordered breathing
Open accessAbstract
Between 1982 and 2006, there were 89 distinct publications dealing with oral appliance therapy involving a total of 3,027 patients, which reported results of sleep studies performed with and without the appliance. These studies, which constitute a very heterogeneous group in terms of methodology and patient population, are reviewed and the results summarized. This review focused on the following outcomes: sleep apnea (i.e. reduction in the apnea/hypopnea index or respiratory disturbance index), ability of oral appliances to reduce snoring, effect of oral appliances on daytime function, comparison of oral appliances with other treatments (continuous positive airway pressure and surgery), side effects, dental changes (overbite and overjet), and long-term compliance. We found that the success rate, defined as the ability of the oral appliances to reduce apnea/hypopnea index to less than 10, is 54%. The response rate, defined as at least 50% reduction in the initial apnea/hypopnea index (although it still remained above 10), is 21%. When only the results of randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled studies are considered, the success and response rates are 50% and 14%, respectively. Snoring was reduced by 45%. In the studies comparing oral appliances to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or to uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP), an appliance reduced initial AHI by 42%, CPAP reduced it by 75%, and UPPP by 30%. The majority of patients prefer using oral appliance than CPAP. Use of oral appliances improves daytime function somewhat; the Epworth sleepiness score (ESS) dropped from 11.2 to 7.8 in 854 patients. A summary of the follow-up compliance data shows that at 30 months, 56-68% of patients continue to use oral appliance. Side effects are relatively minor but frequent. The most common ones are excessive salivation and teeth discomfort. Efficacy and side effects depend on the type of appliance, degree of protrusion, vertical opening, and other settings. We conclude that oral appliances, although not as effective as CPAP in reducing sleep apnea, snoring, and improving daytime function, have a definite role in the treatment of snoring and sleep apnea.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
UPPP is substantially less effective than the use of oral appliances.
“UPPP is substantially less effective than the use of oral appliances 88, 204.”
From Non-CPAP therapies in obstructive sleep apnoea (2011) · cites this paper as [204]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 128 · Cited by 355
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [62]Ryan CF Love LL Peat D Fleetham JA Lowe AA Mandibular advancement oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnea: effect on awake caliber of the velopharynx Thorax 1999 54 972 977 PMC1745384 10525554 Ryan CF, Love LL, Peat D, Fleetham JA, Lowe AA (1999) Mandibular advancement oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnea: effect on awake caliber of the velopharynx. Thorax 54:972–977 10525554 PMC1745384
- [64]Kato J Isono S Tanaka A Watanabe T Araki D Tanzawa H Nishino T Dose-dependent effects of mandibular advancement on pharyngeal mechanics and nocturnal oxygenation in patients with sleep-disordered breathing Chest 2000 117 1065 1072 10767241 Kato J, Isono S, Tanaka A, Watanabe T, Araki D, Tanzawa H, Nishino T (2000) Dose-dependent effects of mandibular advancement on pharyngeal mechanics and nocturnal oxygenation in patients with sleep-disordered breathing. Chest 117:1065–1072 10767241
- Authors
- Hoffstein, V.
- Affiliations
- St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Hoffstein, Victor
- Venue
- Sleep and Breathing
- Published
- 2006-11-29
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-22
- ISSN
- 1520-9512 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1709
- PMC
- PMC1794626
- OpenAlex
- W2046131459
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 128
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 1.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Sleep And Breathing (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Complementary and Manual Therapy › Temporomandibular Joint Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
- Keywords
- oral appliances, sleep-disordered breathing, obstructive sleep apnea, snoring, apnea-hypopnea index, continuous positive airway pressure, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, daytime functioning, Epworth sleepiness score, medication adherence, adverse effects, dental changes, overbite, overjet
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Orthodontic Appliances, Removable, Research Design, Snoring, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Polysomnography, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review