A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Clinical impact of two types of mandibular retention devices - A CAD/CAM design and a traditional design - On upper airway volume in obstructive sleep apnea patients. | LitMetric

Clinical impact of two types of mandibular retention devices - A CAD/CAM design and a traditional design - On upper airway volume in obstructive sleep apnea patients.

J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg

Professor, Chief of the Service de Stomatologie et de Chirurgie Maxillo-faciale de la Pitié Salpétrière, France.

Published: September 2021

Objective: This pilot randomized crossover study evaluated the outcomes of two custom-made mandibular retention devices (MRDs), a computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) device (Narval CC™) and a non-CAD/CAM device (Narval™), on oropharyngeal airway volume in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA).

Methods: 12 OSA patients were recruited from an University Hospital for MRD therapy with either CAD/CAM or non-CAD/CAM first. A cone-beam computed tomography evaluation (CBCT) and polysomnography assessment was performed during baseline assessment and at the end of each study period.

Results: Upper airway volume increased significantly with the CAD/CAM device (7725 +/- 6540 mm, p = 0.008) but not with the non-CAD/CAM device (3805 +/- 7806 mm, p = 0.13). The CAD/CAM device was also associated with a significant decrease in AHI (mean AHI after treatment 9.4±6.7 events/h, p = 0.003) and oxygen desaturation index (mean ODI of ≥ 3%/h 11.9 ± 6.8, p = 0.011). Changes in AHI (14.7 +/- 11.7 events/h, p = 0.083) and ODI (15.5 +/- 19.2, p = 0.074) were not statistically significant with the non-CAD/CAM device. The vertical dimension of occlusion increased significantly following treatment with both MRD devices (both p = 0.003), but was significantly less pronounced with the CAD/CAM device (mean difference: -2.7 +/- 1.7 mm, p = 0.003). Final mandibular protrusion after titration was the same with both devices (85%, p = 0.317).

Conclusion: The CAD/CAM (Narval CC) device was associated with a significant increase in upper airway volume that may be caused by a lower degree of vertical separation between the jaws when compared to the non-CAD/CAM design.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2021.06.002DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

airway volume
16
upper airway
12
non-cad/cam device
12
cad/cam device
12
mandibular retention
8
retention devices
8
obstructive sleep
8
device
8
device associated
8
cad/cam
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!