Oral appliance (OA(m)) therapy has demonstrated efficacy in treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The aim of this systematic review was to clarify the efficacy of device designs (Mono-block or Bi-block) in OA(m) therapy for OSA patients. We performed a meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Two studies (Mono-block OA(m) versus Bi-block OA(m)) remained eligible after applying the exclusion criteria. When comparing Mono-block OA(m) and Bi-block OA(m), Mono-block OA(m) significantly reduced the apnea-hypopnea index (2.92; 95% confidence interval (95%CI), 1.26 to 4.58; p = 0.0006), and patient preference for Mono-block OA(m) was significantly higher (2.06; 95%CI, 1.44 to 2.06; p < 0.0001). Lowest SpO(2), arousal index, non-REM stage 3, sleep efficiency, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Snoring Scale, and side effects were not significantly different between the two groups (lowest SpO(2): -11.18; 95%CI, -26.90 to 4.54; p = 0.16, arousal index: 4.40; 95%CI, -6.00 to 14.80; p = 0.41, non-REM stage 3: -2.00; 95%CI, -6.00 to 14.80; p = 0.41, sleep efficiency: -1.42, 95%CI, -4.71 to 1.86; p = 0.40, ESS: 0.12; 95%CI, -1.55 to 1.79; p = 0.89, Snoring Scale: 0.55; 95%CI, -0.73 to 1.83, p = 0.55, side effects: 1.00, 95%CI, 0.62 to 1.61, p = 1.00). In this systematic review, the use of Mono-block OA(m) was more effective than Bi-block OA(m) for OSA patients.
No clinical trial protocols linked to this paper
Clinical trials are automatically linked when NCT numbers are found in the paper's title or abstract.PICO Elements
No PICO elements extracted yet. Click "Extract PICO" to analyze this paper.
Paper Details
MeSH Terms
Associated Data
No associated datasets or code repositories found for this paper.
Related Papers
Related paper suggestions will be available in future updates.