PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 5, 2026Sleep And Breathing0 citationsOpen Access

Side effects of mandibular advancement devices in obstructive sleep apnea patients – observational results of a randomized controlled trial

View Full Paper
OBOlaf BernhardtNGNikolaos Nikitas GiannakopoulosHKHorst Kares

Key Points

  • To identify side effects of two different mandibular advancement devices (MADs) used in obstructive sleep apnea treatment.
  • Sixty-five patients randomly assigned to two types of MADs.
  • Assessments included various questionnaires and digital analysis of occlusal contacts.
  • Data analyzed using linear models adjusted for multiple factors.
  • No significant difference in orofacial pain between the two MADs (P = 0.107).
  • Significant loss of posterior tooth contacts was observed in both MADs.
  • Somnological variables decreased post-treatment, without notable differences between MAD designs.

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To identify side effects of two different mandibular advancement devices (MAD) for treating obstructive sleep apnea. Methods Sixty-five patients were randomly assigned to two MADs (MAD 1 with bilateral sliding wings, MAD 2 with bilateral bars according to the Herbst appliance). Instructions for supportive jaw exercises and a morning occlusal guide were supplied. Orofacial pain, tenderness of masticatory muscles and temporomandibular joints, interdental contact analysis (digital bite registration system, Greifswald Digital Analyzing System (GEDAS) and Shimstock-foil), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and the Oral Health Impact Profile 5 were assessed before and after one year of treatment. MADs were compared using linear models, which were adjusted for study center, age, sex, and baseline values. Tooth type and tooth status were also included in the multilevel model of interdental contacts. Results This study did not contradict the supposition that both MADs yield the same mean for the primary outcome, orofacial pain (P = 0.107; n = 49), possibly because of the reduced sample size due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Significant loss of posterior tooth contacts (n = 37) was established when applying the digital analysis for both MADs. Somnological variables were decreased in the follow-up examination, with no relevant differences between both MAD designs. Conclusion For comparing pain in MAD groups, more data will be needed to pool in meta-analyses. However, in our study, loss of interocclusal contacts in posterior teeth could not be prevented by jaw exercises or the use of an occlusal guide. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04050514, 08/01/2019.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bernhardt et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698435e5f1d9ada3c1fb53a3https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-026-03576-4
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1An Introduction to Statistical Learning2021 · 1,734 citations
  2. 2Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it2004 · 1,968 citations
  3. 3STANDARDIZATION OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT USING OHIP-5 – VALIDATION OF “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE AND SCORING OF ORAL HEALTH IMPACT PROFILE VERSIONS”2021 · 58 citations
  4. 4Clinical study of two mandibular advancement devices in the treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: a pilot randomized controlled trial2024 · 5 citations
  5. 5Long-Term Oral Appliance Therapy Improves Daytime Function and Mood in Upper Airway Resistance Syndrome Patients2017 · 11 citations