uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Use of bibloc and monobloc oral appliances in obstructive sleep apnoea: a multicentre, randomized, blinded, parallel-group equivalence trial.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: European Journal of Orthodontics, ISSN 0141-5387, E-ISSN 1460-2210Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

Background: The clinical benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that the two types of appliances are equally effective in treating OSA.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of monobloc versus bibloc appliances in a short-term perspective.

Patients and methods: In this multicentre, randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-group equivalence trial, patients with OSA were randomly assigned to use either a bibloc or a monobloc appliance. One-night respiratory polygraphy without respiratory support was performed at baseline, and participants were re-examined with the appliance in place at short-term follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the apnoea-hypopnea index (AHI). An independent person prepared a randomization list and sealed envelopes. Evaluating dentist and the biomedical analysts who evaluated the polygraphy were blinded to the choice of therapy.

Results: Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to use the bibloc and 156 the monobloc device; 123 and 139 patients, respectively, were analysed as per protocol. The mean changes in AHI were -13.8 (95% confidence interval -16.1 to -11.5) in the bibloc group and -12.5 (-14.8 to -10.3) in the monobloc group. The difference of -1.3 (-4.5 to 1.9) was significant within the equivalence interval (P = 0.011; the greater of the two P values) and was confirmed by the intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.001). The adverse events were of mild character and were experienced by similar percentages of patients in both groups (39 and 40 per cent for the bibloc and monobloc group, respectively).

Limitations: The study shows short-term results with a median time from commencing treatment to the evaluation visit of 56 days and long-term data on efficacy and harm are needed to be fully conclusive.

Conclusion: In a short-term perspective, both appliances were equivalent in terms of their positive effects for treating OSA and caused adverse events of similar magnitude.

Trial registration: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT02148510).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018.
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-351365DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjy030PubMedID: 29771314OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-351365DiVA, id: diva2:1209966
Available from: 2018-05-25 Created: 2018-05-25 Last updated: 2018-05-25

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bornefalk-Hermansson, Anna
In the same journal
European Journal of Orthodontics
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf