Marklund M
Department of Odontology, Medical Faculty, Umeå University, SE-906 87 Umeå, Sweden.
Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2017;3(3):143-151. doi: 10.1007/s40675-017-0080-5. Epub 2017 Jul 10.
The majority of the adult population is affected by obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), according to recent epidemiological research. Oral appliance (OA) therapy is increasingly recommended, particularly for patients with milder OSA. This review updates the evidence in favor of OA therapy.
A high level of evidence shows that OA is effective in the treatment of OSA, but continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is more efficient. Higher adherence with OAs may compensate for this difference. Daytime sleepiness is better treated with CPAP than with OA in patients with severe OSA. In patients with milder OSA, it is unclear whether sleepiness is significantly reduced. The long-term effectiveness of OAs is uncertain because of side-effects and the risk of OSA deterioration.
OAs are effective, but their efficacy is more variable than that of CPAP. More research is needed about the mechanism of action of OA, subjective effects and long-term health outcomes.
近期流行病学研究表明,大多数成年人群受到阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)的影响。口腔矫治器(OA)治疗越来越受到推荐,尤其是对于症状较轻的OSA患者。本综述更新了支持OA治疗的证据。
高水平证据表明,OA对OSA治疗有效,但持续气道正压通气(CPAP)更为有效。对OA更高的依从性可能会弥补这一差异。在重度OSA患者中,CPAP治疗白天嗜睡的效果优于OA。在症状较轻的OSA患者中,尚不清楚嗜睡是否会显著减轻。由于副作用和OSA病情恶化的风险,OA的长期有效性尚不确定。
OA是有效的,但其疗效比CPAP更具变异性。关于OA的作用机制、主观效果和长期健康结局,还需要更多的研究。