Objective: To compare outcomes for appliances manufactured utilizing the George Gauge Registration (GGR) and the Sibilant Phoneme Registration (SPR). It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in outcomes.Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of two groups. Each group consisted of 20 oral appliances manufactured utilizing the GGR and 20 utilizing the SPR.Results: For the two-site data, no difference in outcomes was demonstrated (p = .24). The SPR method required fewer calibrations (p = 5.6 x 10(-3)) and less jaw movement (p = 3.33 x 10(-4)). Both bite methods resulted in similarly variable post-AHI scores (p = .52). For the eight-site data, no difference in outcomes was demonstrated (p = .76). The SPR required less movement of the jaw (p = 4.52 x 10(-5)); however, outcome variance was larger for the SPR (p = .036).Conclusion: The study null hypothesis of no difference in outcomes was supported.Abbreviations: AHI: Apnea-Hypopnea Index; GGR: George Gauge Registration; SPR: Sibilant Phoneme Registration; OSA: Obstructive Sleep Apnea; OA: Oral Appliance; OAT: Oral Appliance Therapy; MA: Mandibular Advancement; VDO: Vertical Dimensional Opening; AADSM: American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine; ABDSM: American Board of Dental Sleep Medicine; BMI: Body Mass Index.
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.