The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cephalometric predictors of treatment outcome with mandibular advancement devices in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review

  • Alessandri-Bonetti, Giulio (Unit of Orthodontics, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna) ;
  • Ippolito, Daniela Rita (Department of Orthodontics, University of Brescia) ;
  • Bartolucci, Maria Lavinia (Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Oral Science, University of Naples "Federico II") ;
  • D'Anto, Vincenzo (Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Oral Science, University of Naples "Federico II") ;
  • Incerti-Parenti, Serena (Unit of Orthodontics, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna)
  • Received : 2015.02.25
  • Accepted : 2015.05.06
  • Published : 2015.11.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The efficacy of mandibular advancement devices (MADs) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) ranges between 42% and 65%. However, it is still unclear which predictive factors can be used to select suitable patients for MAD treatment. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the predictive value of cephalometric analysis for MAD treatment outcomes in adult OSA patients. Methods: The MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through December 2014. Reference lists from the retrieved publications were also examined. English language studies published in international peer-reviewed journals concerning the predictive value of cephalometric analysis for MAD treatment outcome were considered for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and ascertained the quality of the studies. Results: Fifteen eligible studies were identified. Most of the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue cephalometric measurements examined were widely recognized as not prognostic for MAD treatment outcome; however, controversial and limited data were found on the predictive role of certain cephalometric measurements including cranial base angle, mandibular plane angle, hyoid to mandibular plane distance, posterior nasal spine to soft-palate tip distance, anterior nasal spine to epiglottis base distance, and tongue/oral cross sectional area ratio thus justifying additional studies on these parameters. Conclusions: Currently available evidence is inadequate for identification of cephalometric parameters capable of reliably discriminating between poor and good responders to MAD treatment. To guide further research, methodological weaknesses of the currently available studies were highlighted and possible reasons for their discordant results were analyzed.

Keywords

References

  1. Epstein LJ, Kristo D, Strollo PJ Jr, Friedman N, Malhotra A, Patil SP, et al; Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea Task Force of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Clinical guideline for the evaluation, management and long-term care of obstructive sleep apnea in adults. J Clin Sleep Med 2009;5:263-76.
  2. Skomro RP, Kryger MH. Clinical presentations of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1999;41:331-40. https://doi.org/10.1053/pcad.1999.0410331
  3. Sullivan CE, Issa FG, Berthon-Jones M, Eves L. Reversal of obstructive sleep apnoea by continuous positive airway pressure applied through the nares. Lancet 1981;1:862-5.
  4. Waldhorn RE, Herrick TW, Nguyen MC, O'Donnell AE, Sodero J, Potolicchio SJ. Long-term compliance with nasal continuous positive airway pressure therapy of obstructive sleep apnea. Chest 1990;97:33-8. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.97.1.33
  5. Mehta A, Qian J, Petocz P, Darendeliler MA, Cistulli PA. A randomized, controlled study of a mandibular advancement splint for obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163:1457-61. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.163.6.2004213
  6. Kushida CA, Morgenthaler TI, Littner MR, Alessi CA, Bailey D, Coleman J Jr, et al; American Academy of Sleep. Practice parameters for the treatment of snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea with oral appliances: an update for 2005. Sleep 2006;29:240-3. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/29.2.240
  7. Ferguson KA, Cartwright R, Rogers R, Schmidt- Nowara W. Oral appliances for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea: a review. Sleep 2006;29:244-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/29.2.244
  8. Hoekema A, Doff MH, de Bont LG, van der Hoeven JH, Wijkstra PJ, Pasma HR, et al. Predictors of obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea treatment outcome. J Dent Res 2007;86:1181-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910708601208
  9. Shen HL, Wen YW, Chen NH, Liao YF. Craniofacial morphologic predictors of oral appliance outcomes in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. J Am Dent Assoc 2012;143:1209-17. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0066
  10. Endo S, Mataki S, Kurosaki N. Cephalometric evaluation of craniofacial and upper airway structures in Japanese patients with obstructive sleep apnea. J Med Dent Sci 2003;50:109-20.
  11. Saffer F, Lubianca JF, Rosing C, Dias C, Closs L. Predictors of success in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome with mandibular repositioning appliance: a systematic review. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;19:80-5.
  12. Jovell AJ, Navarro-Rubio MD. Evaluation of scientific evidence. Med Clin (Barc) 1995;105:740-3.
  13. Liu Y, Lowe AA. Factors related to the efficacy of an adjustable oral appliance for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Chin J Dent Res 2000;3:15-23.
  14. Kim YK, Kim JW, Yoon IY, Rhee CS, Lee CH, Yun PY. Influencing factors on the effect of mandibular advancement device in obstructive sleep apnea patients: analysis on cephalometric and polysomnographic parameters. Sleep Breath 2014;18:305-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-013-0885-5
  15. Lee CH, Mo JH, Choi IJ, Lee HJ, Seo BS, Kim DY, et al. The mandibular advancement device and patient selection in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;135:439-44. https://doi.org/10.1001/archoto.2009.31
  16. Lee CH, Kim JW, Lee HJ, Seo BS, Yun PY, Kim DY, et al. Determinants of treatment outcome after use of the mandibular advancement device in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136:677-81. https://doi.org/10.1001/archoto.2010.106
  17. Liu Y, Lowe AA, Fleetham JA, Park YC. Cephalometric and physiologic predictors of the efficacy of an adjustable oral appliance for treating obstructive sleep apnea. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:639-47. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.118782
  18. Marklund M, Franklin KA, Stenlund H, Persson M. Mandibular morphology and the efficacy of a mandibular advancement device in patients with sleep apnoea. Eur J Oral Sci 1998;106:914-21. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0909-8836.1998.eos106503.x
  19. Menn SJ, Loube DI, Morgan TD, Mitler MM, Berger JS, Erman MK. The mandibular repositioning device: role in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep 1996;19:794-800. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/19.10.794
  20. Milano F, Billi MC, Marra F, Sorrenti G, Gracco A, Bonetti GA. Factors associated with the efficacy of mandibular advancing device treatment in adult OSA patients. Int Orthod 2013;11:278-89.
  21. Mostafiz W, Dalci O, Sutherland K, Malhotra A, Srinivasan V, Darendeliler MA, et al. Influence of oral and craniofacial dimensions on mandibular advancement splint treatment outcome in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Chest 2011;139:1331-9. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-2224
  22. Ng AT, Darendeliler MA, Petocz P, Cistulli PA. Cephalometry and prediction of oral appliance treatment outcome. Sleep Breath 2012;16:47-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-011-0484-2
  23. Rose E, Lehner M, Staats R, Jonas IE. Cephalometric analysis in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Part II: Prognostic value in treatment with a mandibular advancement device. J Orofac Orthop 2002;63:315-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-002-0058-9
  24. Svanholt P, Petri N, Wildschiodtz G, Sonnesen L. Influence of craniofacial and upper spine morphology on mandibular advancement device treatment outcome in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea: a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 2015;37:391-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju064
  25. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
  26. Hoekema A, Hovinga B, Stegenga B, De Bont LG. Craniofacial morphology and obstructive sleep apnoea: a cephalometric analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:690-6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01130.x
  27. Sanner BM, Heise M, Knoben B, Machnick M, Laufer U, Kikuth R, et al. MRI of the pharynx and treatment efficacy of a mandibular advancement device in obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome. Eur Respir J 2002;20:143-50. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.02.00268902
  28. Chan AS, Lee RW, Srinivasan VK, Darendeliler MA, Grunstein RR, Cistulli PA. Nasopharyngoscopic evaluation of oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea. Eur Respir J 2010;35:836-42. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00077409
  29. Sam K, Lam B, Ooi CG, Cooke M, Ip MS. Effect of a non-adjustable oral appliance on upper airway morphology in obstructive sleep apnoea. Respir Med 2006;100:897-902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2005.08.019
  30. Lowe AA. Can we predict the success of dental appliance therapy for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea based on anatomic considerations? Sleep 1993;16(8 Suppl):S93-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/16.suppl_8.S93

Cited by

  1. Double Anterior Segmental Osteotomy Under Local Anesthesia for Correcting Adult Protrusion With Thin Alveolus and Ankylosed Tooth vol.28, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000003432
  2. Soft palate cephalometric changes with a mandibular advancement device may be associated with polysomnographic improvement in obstructive sleep apnea vol.275, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-5007-3
  3. From CPAP to tailored therapy for obstructive sleep Apnoea vol.13, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40248-018-0157-0
  4. Prediction in obstructive sleep apnoea: diagnosis, comorbidity risk, and treatment outcomes vol.12, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2018.1439743
  5. Phenotyping obstructive sleep apnoea—Bringing precision to oral appliance therapy vol.46, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12857
  6. Oral Appliances in the Management of Obstructive Sleep Apnea vol.15, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsmc.2020.02.010
  7. Short‐term effects of the Sander bite‐jumping appliance on the pharyngeal airways in subjects with skeletal Class II malocclusion: A retrospective case‐control study vol.47, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13078
  8. The effectiveness of mandibular advancement devices in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea in adults: a methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews vol.42, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjz065
  9. Upper airway collapsibility in patients with OSA treated with continuous positive airway pressure: a retrospective preliminary study vol.16, pp.11, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.8674
  10. Treatment outcome of oral appliance in patients with REM-related obstructive sleep apnea vol.24, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-019-01966-5
  11. Effectiveness of different mandibular advancement device designs in obstructive sleep apnoea therapy: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta‐analysis vol.48, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.13077