OBJECTIVE: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prevalent disorder, with oral breathing influencing its severity. Expiratory velopharyngeal obstruction (EVO), observed during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE), may contribute to oral breathing in OSA patients. EVO results in obstruction between the pharynx and nasal cavity during expiration. This study aims to identify factors associated with positive EVO during DISE.
METHODS: Case series.
METHODS: Tertiary Medical Center.
METHODS: Seventy-two OSA patients underwent clinical evaluation, polysomnography, and DISE, utilizing interventions like intraoral negative airway pressure (iNAP), mouth closure, and oral appliances (OAs) in supine positions with head rotation. The findings, classified under velopharynx, oropharynx, tongue base, epiglottis, included the presence of EVO.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that interventions including mouth closure and iNAP were associated with increased observation of EVO (43.1% and 34.7%) compared to OA (20.1%). However, head rotation was associated with decreased presence of EVO during DISE compare to supine (26% vs 35.8%). Noticeably, per 1 year increase of age was associated with an increased odds of EVO (odds ratio: 1.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.06). However, no other baseline characteristics were significantly associated the odds of EVO.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals the effectiveness of head rotation and OA in reducing EVO and improving mouth breathing in OSA patients, offering valuable insights for future treatment strategies.

With the purpose of establishing a consensus around clinical orientations for professionals involved in managing patients with sleep breathing disorders (SBD), an interdisciplinary group of scientific societies involved in this field discussed and reviewed all the published international guidelines from the American Dental Association, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine and the European counterparts. Treatment of SBD is multidisciplinary and should be made in concert with the patient, the sleep physician, and the qualified dentist to solve the individual, social, and economic burden of the disease,. This consensus document represents the current thinking of a team of Portuguese experts on managing patients with SBD based on the available evidence.

This perspective on alternatives to positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) summarizes the proceedings of a focus group that was conducted by the Sleep Research Society Foundation. This perspective is from a multidisciplinary panel of experts from sleep medicine, dental sleep medicine, and otolaryngology that aims to identify the current role of oral appliance therapy and hypoglossal nerve stimulation for the treatment of OSA with emphasis on the US practice arena. A secondary aim is to identify-from an implementation science standpoint-the various barriers and facilitators for adoption of non-PAP treatment that includes access to care, multidisciplinary expertise, reimbursement, regulatory aspects, current treatment guidelines, health policies, and other factors related to the delivery of care. The panel has contextualized the review with recent events-such as a large-scale PAP device recall compounded by supply chain woes of the pandemic-and emerging science in the field of OSA and offers solutions for multidisciplinary approaches while identifying knowledge gaps and future research opportunities.

OSAS and TMDs represent multifactorial nosologic entities, whose central, functional and psycho-social aspects are gaining growing attention within the scientific community. In our previous commentary, we wanted to point out that structural aspects should not be forgotten in a clinical and research context. The inherent complexity of the matter could make it difficult to quantify the exact contribution of every single factor. The multifaceted nature of OSAS and TMDs pathophysiology could sustain several phenotypes in both conditions, and the anatomic parameters may assume different weights according to each phenotype, possibly justifying literature discrepancies. Thus, a patient with a co-existing OSAS and TMD (umbrella terms per se, each of them including different pathophysiological and clinical characteristics) represents an even greater challenge to researchers and practitioners. The scientific and therapeutic community should keep on looking for evidence to offer the best possible answers to such daring questions, in the most collaborative and fruitful way.

The use of mandibular repositioning devices (MRDs) in the management of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has gained extensive recognition with relevant clinical evidence of its effectiveness. MRDs are designed to advance and hold the mandible in a protrusive position to widen the upper airway and promote air circulation. This review of the MRD aims to provide an evidence-based update on the optimal design features of an MRD, an analysis of the variety of appliances available, and the current understanding of the action mechanism.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can affect children and adults, and, if left untreated, could have a major impact on the general and overall well-being of the patient. Dental health care providers and orthodontists have an interdisciplinary role in screening patients at risk for OSA and make a referral to establish a definitive diagnosis by a sleep physician. The gold standard of diagnostic testing is polysomnography. The adeno-tonsillar hypertrophy is the primary cause of sleep apnea in children; therefore, adeno-tonsillectomy must be the first line of treatment. Post adeno-tonsillectomy, if there is residual OSA due to underlying skeletal discrepancy, the patient may be referred to an orthodontist for appropriate management. Currently the evidence in the literature for prophylactic growth modification in children to prevent OSA is weak. In adults, the gold standard for managing OSA is Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) therapy; however, adherence to this treatment is rather low. The oral appliance (OA) therapy is an alternate for PAP intolerant patients and for mild to moderate OSA patients. The OA therapy has to be administered by a qualified dentist or orthodontist after careful examination of dental and periodontal health as well as any pre-existing joint conditions. The OA therapy could cause OA-associated malocclusion and patients have to be made aware of prior to initiating treatment. In patients with severe OSA, surgical maxilla-mandibular advancement (MMA) is highly effective.

Research assessing the effects of mouthpieces on an individual\'s aerobic, anaerobic, or muscular performance have attributed cited improvements to the participant\'s ability to jaw clench. Jaw clenching research finds positive outcomes with the task of jaw clenching with targeted muscle groups in a controlled laboratory setting. Thus, the study\'s goal was to determine if the addition of a mouthpiece would positively affect performance outcomes in a field-based whole-body muscle movement. Fourteen participants (8=F and 6=M) NCAA softball and baseball athletes completed 5 maximal bat swings with and without a mouthpiece in 4 conditions: no jaw clenching (NC), mouthpiece and jaw clenching (MP+C), mouthpiece only (MP), and jaw clenching only (C). Significant differences occurred in conditions, with the highest velocity noted in the combined condition of MP+C (71.9 mph) as compared to NC (67.9 mph), MP (68.6 mph), and C (70.9 mph). A repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated significant differences with bat swing velocity (F = 13.19, df 3, p < 0.0001). Pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences in MP+C with MP (p = 0.007); MP+C with NC (p = 0.001), and C with NC (p = 0.009). The results of this study provide evidence of jaw clenching\'s positive effects on the dynamic, whole-body explosive activity of a bat swing.

OBJECTIVE: Although overall success rates for treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with an oral appliance (OA) are high, they are significantly higher among females. To verify published data, the study\'s purpose was to evaluate a participant sample after one year of OA use. The primary outcome was treatment response, with responders defined as having an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) < 10 at follow-up and/or reduced by ≥50% of baseline. Secondary measures were from standardized questionnaires.
METHODS: A sample of 314 participants, predominately with moderate-to-severe OSA, were enrolled and instructed to use an OA every night. At baseline and one-year follow-up, polygraphic recordings and questionnaires, including sleepiness (measured using the Epworth sleepiness scale) and quality-of-life (measured using the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire), were collected.
RESULTS: Among the 314 participants, 192 completed the one-year evaluation: 51 females (27%) and 141 males (73%). Overall, OA treatment resulted in 78% and 77% responders among females and males, respectively. Neither the difference in improvement nor the absolute change in AHI differed significantly based on gender, at any OSA severity level. There were no significant gender differences in sleepiness or quality of life. Treatment-related adverse reactions were more common among females.
CONCLUSIONS: Both females and males with OSA respond well to OA therapy, with nonsignificant gender differences in outcomes. Thus, the hypothesis that females respond better to OA treatment is rejected.

Objective  to report a myotonic dystrophy type 1 (MD1) subject with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome treated with oral appliance. Methods  A review of individual\'s history and records, associated with a photographic register of all diagnostic methods and literature research about the topic were done. Final Statements  This case depicts the therapeutical choices disposable to treat subjects with obstructive sleep apnea and DM1. Although considered an uncommon treatment, the oral appliances, if well indicated in adequately selected cases, can satisfactorily improve respiratory parameters, symptoms and quality of life.

UNASSIGNED: To compare efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and oral appliance (OA) in management of various grades of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
UNASSIGNED: Thirty polysomnography diagnosed cases of OSA were divided into three groups based on baseline apnea hypopnea index (AHI) as follows: group 1: mild OSA (AHI = 5-14.9), group 2: moderate OSA (AHI = 15-29.9), and group 3: severe OSA (AHI >30) with 10 patients in each group. Half of the patients in each group were randomly allocated to CPAP or OA therapy, and crossover of therapy was performed after two months. AHI, Epworth\'s Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and mean oxygen saturation (SPO2) were measured at baseline, after each arm of treatment and after the crossover. A questionnaire survey including information regarding pretreatment sleep symptoms and improvement after therapy was performed at above time frames. At the end of therapy, the patients were surveyed regarding satisfaction and perceived effectiveness with both modalities.
UNASSIGNED: CPAP was more efficacious in reducing AHI and SPO2 as compared with OA across the three study groups. The improvement in most sleep-related symptoms was higher with CPAP. The satisfaction and perception on effectiveness of treatment were higher with OA than CPAP across three study groups (P-value<0.05 for all).
UNASSIGNED: OA is an effective alternative to CPAP across all grades of OSA in selected cases, which is more preferred owing to higher effectiveness and satisfaction among the patients.