Mandibular Advancement Device versus CPAP in Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is linked to adverse cardiovascular outcomes. While continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the standard treatment, mandibular advancement devices (MADs) offer an alternative. This substudy of a randomized trial compared the effectiveness of MADs versus CPAP on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP), sleep-related quality of life, myocardial remodeling, ambulatory heart rhythm, and biomarkers in severe OSA. A total of 144 participants were randomized to MAD (<i>n</i> = 73) or CPAP (<i>n</i> = 71) for 12 mo. Median nightly usage was 5.4 (2.9-6.5) h for the MAD group (≥6 h/night: 56.1%) and 4.9 (4.0-6.0) h for the CPAP group (≥6 h/night: 28.3%). The apnea-hypopnea index at baseline and 6 mo was 44.0 (37.6-59.2) and 20.9 (11.7-31.9) events/h in the MAD group and 50.7 (40.7-59.8) and 2.1 (1.2-3.4) events/h in the CPAP group, respectively. MAD treatment reduced asleep mean BP (-4.7 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.3 to -4.0, <i>P</i> = 0.015), asleep systolic BP (-2.0 mm Hg, 95% CI: -10.0 to -4.0, <i>P</i> = 0.047), and asleep diastolic BP (-4.0 mm Hg, 95% CI: -9.0 to -3.0, <i>P</i> = 0.007), whereas CPAP showed no significant changes. The between-group differences favored MAD in asleep mean BP (-3.70 mm Hg, 95% CI: -7.40 to 0.00, <i>P</i> = 0.050) and asleep systolic BP (-4.78 mm Hg, 95% CI: -9.51 to 0.04, <i>P</i> = 0.048). Both improved sleep-related quality of life, although CPAP had a slightly greater effect on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (Δ1.63, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.81, <i>P</i> = 0.007). No significant changes were observed in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging parameters, ambulatory heart rhythm, or biomarkers. Adverse effects included jaw pain (14.8%) and teeth discomfort (8.2%) with MAD, whereas CPAP users reported dry mouth (50.8%), nasal congestion (23.0%), and air leakage (29.5%). In conclusion, these findings suggested MAD could be an acceptable and effective treatment for patients with severe OSA and hypertension. The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04119999).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Dental Research
Published
2025-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345251361796
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.66

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Mandibular Advancement Device versus CPAP in Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Y.-H. Ou, Huan Tan, Anastasya Maria Kosasih, Frank Lee et al.
4 citations
Journal of Dental Research
Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
4.66
article

Mandibular Advancement Device versus CPAP in Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Y.-H. Ou, Huan Tan, Anastasya Maria Kosasih, Frank Lee, Calvin Chin, Juliana Tereza Colpani, Chi‐Hang Lee, Peter A. Cistulli, Raymond Chung Wen Wong, S.-P. Chan
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is linked to adverse cardiovascular outcomes. While continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the standard treatment, mandibular advancement devices (MADs) offer an alternative. This substudy of a randomized trial compared the effectiveness of MADs versus CPAP on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP), sleep-related quality of life, myocardial remodeling, ambulatory heart rhythm, and biomarkers in severe OSA. A total of 144 participants were randomized to MAD (<i>n</i> = 73) or CPAP (<i>n</i> = 71) for 12 mo. Median nightly usage was 5.4 (2.9-6.5) h for the MAD group (≥6 h/night: 56.1%) and 4.9 (4.0-6.0) h for the CPAP group (≥6 h/night: 28.3%). The apnea-hypopnea index at baseline and 6 mo was 44.0 (37.6-59.2) and 20.9 (11.7-31.9) events/h in the MAD group and 50.7 (40.7-59.8) and 2.1 (1.2-3.4) events/h in the CPAP group, respectively. MAD treatment reduced asleep mean BP (-4.7 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.3 to -4.0, <i>P</i> = 0.015), asleep systolic BP (-2.0 mm Hg, 95% CI: -10.0 to -4.0, <i>P</i> = 0.047), and asleep diastolic BP (-4.0 mm Hg, 95% CI: -9.0 to -3.0, <i>P</i> = 0.007), whereas CPAP showed no significant changes. The between-group differences favored MAD in asleep mean BP (-3.70 mm Hg, 95% CI: -7.40 to 0.00, <i>P</i> = 0.050) and asleep systolic BP (-4.78 mm Hg, 95% CI: -9.51 to 0.04, <i>P</i> = 0.048). Both improved sleep-related quality of life, although CPAP had a slightly greater effect on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (Δ1.63, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.81, <i>P</i> = 0.007). No significant changes were observed in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging parameters, ambulatory heart rhythm, or biomarkers. Adverse effects included jaw pain (14.8%) and teeth discomfort (8.2%) with MAD, whereas CPAP users reported dry mouth (50.8%), nasal congestion (23.0%), and air leakage (29.5%). In conclusion, these findings suggested MAD could be an acceptable and effective treatment for patients with severe OSA and hypertension. The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04119999).

Journal of Dental ResearchVol. 105(1)
National University of Singapore (SG), Royal North Shore Hospital (AU), National University Heart Centre Singapore (SG), Northern Sydney Local Health District (AU), National Heart Centre Singapore (SG)
National Medical Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
4.66
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.