Suppr超能文献

下颌前移矫治器与舌稳定器治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停的比较:一项随机对照试验

Comparison of mandibular advancement splint and tongue stabilizing device in obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial.

作者信息

Deane Sheryn A, Cistulli Peter A, Ng Andrew T, Zeng Biao, Petocz Peter, Darendeliler M Ali

机构信息

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney Dental Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

Sleep. 2009 May;32(5):648-53. doi: 10.1093/sleep/32.5.648.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of a mandibular advancement splint (MAS) and a novel tongue stabilizing device (TSD) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

DESIGN

A randomized crossover design was used.

PATIENTS

Twenty-seven patients (20 male, 7 female), recruited from a tertiary hospital sleep clinic.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was reduced with MAS (11.68 +/- 8.94, P = 0.000) and TSD (13.15 +/- 10.77, P = 0.002) compared with baseline (26.96 +/- 17.17). The arousal index decreased for MAS (21.09 +/- 9.27, P = 0.004) and TSD (21.9 +/- 10.56, P = 0.001) compared with baseline (33.23 +/- 16.41). Sixty-eight percent of patients achieved a complete or partial response with MAS, compared with 45% with TSD. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score was decreased with MAS (P = < 0.001) and TSD (P = 0.002). Subjective improvements in snoring and quality of sleep were reported, with a better response for MAS than TSD. Compliance was poorer for TSD, and the side effect profiles of the 2 modalities were different. All patients were satisfied with MAS compared to TSD, and 91% of patients preferred the MAS.

CONCLUSION

Objective testing showed the MAS and TSD had similar efficacy in terms of AHI reduction. Patients reported improvements with both devices; however, better compliance and a clear preference for MAS was apparent when both devices were offered. Longer term studies are needed to clarify the role of TSD.

摘要

研究目的

比较下颌前移矫治器(MAS)和新型舌稳定装置(TSD)治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)的疗效。

设计

采用随机交叉设计。

患者

从一家三级医院睡眠诊所招募的27名患者(20名男性,7名女性)。

测量与结果

与基线水平(26.96±17.17)相比,使用MAS(11.68±8.94,P = 0.000)和TSD(13.15±10.77,P = 0.002)时呼吸暂停低通气指数(AHI)降低。与基线水平(33.23±16.41)相比,MAS(21.09±9.27,P = 0.004)和TSD(21.9±10.56,P = 0.001)的觉醒指数降低。68%的患者使用MAS时实现了完全或部分缓解,而使用TSD的患者为45%。Epworth嗜睡量表(ESS)评分使用MAS时降低(P = < 0.001),使用TSD时也降低(P = 0.002)。患者报告打鼾和睡眠质量有主观改善,MAS的反应优于TSD。TSD的依从性较差,两种方式的副作用情况不同。与TSD相比,所有患者对MAS都更满意,91%的患者更喜欢MAS。

结论

客观测试表明,在降低AHI方面,MAS和TSD具有相似的疗效。患者报告两种装置都有改善;然而,当提供两种装置时,MAS的依从性更好且明显更受青睐。需要进行长期研究以阐明TSD的作用。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

1
Treatable traits in interstitial lung disease: a narrative review.间质性肺疾病的可治疗特征:一篇叙述性综述
Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2025 Jan-Dec;19:17534666251335774. doi: 10.1177/17534666251335774. Epub 2025 May 3.
7
International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea.国际阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停共识声明。
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2023 Jul;13(7):1061-1482. doi: 10.1002/alr.23079. Epub 2023 Mar 30.

本文引用的文献

3
Excess weight and sleep-disordered breathing.超重与睡眠呼吸紊乱。
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2005 Oct;99(4):1592-9. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00587.2005.
4
Obstructive sleep apnea.阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003 Oct;112(4):643-51; quiz 652. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2003.08.031.
9
Effectiveness of a tongue-retaining device.舌保持装置的有效性。
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2002 Jun;56(3):331-2. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1819.2002.01003.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验