Diagnostic and Therapeutic Indications of Different Types of Mandibular Advancement Design for Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: Indications from Literature Review and Case Descriptions

TL;DR

This paper reviews different mandibular advancement devices for treating obstructive sleep apnea and provides guidance on selecting the most suitable design based on patient characteristics.

Contribution

The paper introduces a framework for clinicians to evaluate MAD designs based on multidisciplinary patient assessments.

Findings

Bibloc appliances are preferred over mono-bloc devices due to customizable mandibular advancement.

Provisional devices can serve as screening tools to assess patient adherence to therapy.

Orthodontists should collaborate with sleep specialists during diagnosis and treatment planning.

Abstract

Background: Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) are considered a primary alternative treatment for adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who are unable to tolerate or do not respond to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, supported by substantial scientific evidence. While a range of designs and materials for MADs are commercially available, there is a lack of clear diagnostic guidelines to assist clinicians in selecting the most appropriate device based on a multidisciplinary evaluation of OSA patients. This narrative review seeks to outline the key characteristics of MADs that clinicians should evaluate during both the diagnostic and treatment phases for patients with OSA. Methods: An extensive search of academic databases was conducted to gather relevant studies that address therapeutic and diagnostic recommendations for the design and titration of MADs. The search was carried out across EMBASE, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science up to May 2024. From a total of 1445 identified citations, 1103 remained after duplicate removal. Based on the inclusion criteria, the full text of 202 articles was retrieved, and 70 studies were ultimately included in this review. The extracted data were organized to generate clinical insights, aimed at guiding orthodontists in optimizing diagnostic and decision-making processes for treating OSA patients with MADs. Results: The analysis led to the identification of key clinical questions that can assist orthodontists in enhancing their approach and choosing the appropriate appliance basing on the diagnosis and clinical dento-orofacial characteristics. Conclusions: Bibloc appliances could be preferred over mono-bloc devices due to the possibility of arranging the mandibular advancement according to the patient’s clinical condition and orofacial symptoms. Provisional devices could be used as screening tools to verify the patient’s adherence to the therapy. Regardless of the MAD design, type and programmed advancement, it must be under-lined that the rule of the orthodontist/dental specialist is secondary to the other sleep-medicine specialists (ORL, pulmonologist) and must be related to (1) a preliminary assessment of MAD usage (dental anatomical conditions), (2) testing a diagnostic MAD usable during a sleep examination (PSG or DISE), (3) final treatment with a definitive MAD.

Figures