Efficacy of an Adjustable Oral Appliance and Comparison With Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome

BackgroundWe sought to establish the efficacy of an adjustable oral appliance (aOA) in the largest patient population studied to date, to our knowledge, and to provide a comparison with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of patients using an aOA. Results of overnight polysomnography with aOA titration were evaluated and compared with CPAP. Predictors of a successful aOA titration were determined using a multivariate logistic regression model.ResultsA total of 497 patients were given an aOA during the specified time period. The aOA reduced the mean apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) to 8.4 ± 11.4, and 70.3%, 47.6%, and 41.4% of patients with mild, moderate, and severe disease achieved an AHI < 5, respectively. Patients using an aOA decreased their mean Epworth Sleepiness Score by 2.71 (95% CI, 2.3-3.2; P < .001) at follow-up. CPAP improved the AHI by −3.43 (95% CI, 1.88-4.99; P < .001) when compared with an aOA, but when adjusted for severity of disease, this difference only reached significance for patients with severe disease (−5.88 [95% CI, −8.95 to −2.82; P < .001]). However, 70.1% of all patients achieved an AHI < 5 using CPAP compared with 51.6% for the aOA (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, baseline AHI was a significant predictor of achieving an AHI < 5 on aOA titration, and age showed a trend toward significance.ConclusionsIn comparison with past reports, more patients in our study achieved an AHI < 5 using an aOA. The aOA is comparable to CPAP for patients with mild disease, whereas CPAP is superior for patients with moderate to severe disease. A lower AHI was the only predictor of a successful aOA titration.