Leonard A Liptak, Edward Sall, Sung Kim, Erin Mosca, Shouresh Charkhandeh, John E Remmers
{"title":"Different Oral Appliance Designs Demonstrate Different Rates of Efficacy for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Review Article.","authors":"Leonard A Liptak, Edward Sall, Sung Kim, Erin Mosca, Shouresh Charkhandeh, John E Remmers","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12020210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Obstructive Sleep Apnea afflicts an estimated 1 billion people worldwide. Untreated, Obstructive Sleep Apnea is linked with elevated levels of mortality, decreased quality of life and increased economic costs. However, several large population studies demonstrate that the efficacy of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure therapy, the most frequently prescribed treatment for Obstructive Sleep Apnea, is compromised by frequent refusals and terminations. As a result, healthcare providers are evaluating non-CPAP treatment options. Oral Appliance Therapy has emerged as a leading non-CPAP treatment for patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Historically, healthcare providers have questioned the efficacy of Oral Appliance Therapy. Dozens of Oral Appliances are available to healthcare providers, with many contemporary Oral Appliances featuring improved designs, materials and technologies. This review investigates whether Oral Appliance design matters; do different Oral Appliance designs demonstrate different rates of efficacy? To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first review to exclusively focus on scientific papers that report treatment success with Oral Appliances as a residual Apnea Hypopnea Index of less than 10 events per hour. Out of 272 source papers, the 27 papers included in this review encompass a pooled sample of 3799 patients treated with six distinctly different categories of Oral Appliance designs. Chi-squared and two-sided Fisher's exact tests indicate significant differences in efficacy amongst Oral Appliance designs. These findings suggest that certain Oral Appliance designs can enable highly efficacious treatment for patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Given these findings, healthcare providers should consider design when selecting an oral device for patients diagnosed with Obstructive Sleep Apnea.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11852099/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020210","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Obstructive Sleep Apnea afflicts an estimated 1 billion people worldwide. Untreated, Obstructive Sleep Apnea is linked with elevated levels of mortality, decreased quality of life and increased economic costs. However, several large population studies demonstrate that the efficacy of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure therapy, the most frequently prescribed treatment for Obstructive Sleep Apnea, is compromised by frequent refusals and terminations. As a result, healthcare providers are evaluating non-CPAP treatment options. Oral Appliance Therapy has emerged as a leading non-CPAP treatment for patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Historically, healthcare providers have questioned the efficacy of Oral Appliance Therapy. Dozens of Oral Appliances are available to healthcare providers, with many contemporary Oral Appliances featuring improved designs, materials and technologies. This review investigates whether Oral Appliance design matters; do different Oral Appliance designs demonstrate different rates of efficacy? To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first review to exclusively focus on scientific papers that report treatment success with Oral Appliances as a residual Apnea Hypopnea Index of less than 10 events per hour. Out of 272 source papers, the 27 papers included in this review encompass a pooled sample of 3799 patients treated with six distinctly different categories of Oral Appliance designs. Chi-squared and two-sided Fisher's exact tests indicate significant differences in efficacy amongst Oral Appliance designs. These findings suggest that certain Oral Appliance designs can enable highly efficacious treatment for patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Given these findings, healthcare providers should consider design when selecting an oral device for patients diagnosed with Obstructive Sleep Apnea.
期刊介绍:
Aims
Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal:
● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings.
● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed.
● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds.
Scope
● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces
● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices
● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc.
● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology
● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering
● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation
● Translational bioengineering