Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2000 Jul;162(1):246-51.
doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.162.1.9908112.

A randomized, controlled crossover trial of two oral appliances for sleep apnea treatment

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

A randomized, controlled crossover trial of two oral appliances for sleep apnea treatment

K E Bloch et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000 Jul.

Abstract

Our purpose was to compare the effectiveness and side effects of a novel, single-piece mandibular advancement device (OSA-Monobloc) for sleep apnea therapy with those of a two-piece appliance with lateral Herbst attachments (OSA-Herbst) as used in previous studies. An OSA-Monobloc and an OSA-Herbst with equal protrusion were fitted in 24 obstructive sleep apnea patients unable to use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. After an adaptation period of 156 +/- 14 d (mean +/- SE), patients used the OSA-Monobloc, the OSA-Herbst, and no appliance in random order, using each appliance for 1 wk. Symptom scores were recorded and sleep studies were done at the end of each week. Several symptom scores were significantly improved with both appliances, but to a greater degree with the OSA-Monobloc. Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores were 8.8 +/- 0.7 with the OSA-Herbst, and 8.6 +/- 0.8 with the OSA-Monobloc devices, and 13.1 +/- 0.9 without therapy (p < 0.05 versus both appliances). The apnea/hypopnea index was 8.7 +/- 1.5/h with the OSA-Herbst and 7.9 +/- 1.6/h with the OSA-Monobloc device, and 22.6 +/- 3.1/h without therapy (p < 0.05 versus both appliances). Side effects were mild and of equal prevalence with both appliances. Fifteen patients preferred the OSA-Monobloc, eight patients had no preference, and one patient preferred the OSA-Herbst device (p < 0.008 versus OSA-Monobloc). We conclude that both the OSA-Herbst and the OSA-Monobloc are effective therapeutic devices for sleep apnea. The OSA-Monobloc relieved symptoms to a greater extent than the OSA-Herbst, and was preferred by the majority of patients on the basis of its simple application.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources