首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health >The Most Effective Amount of Forward Movement for Oral Appliances for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review
【2h】

The Most Effective Amount of Forward Movement for Oral Appliances for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Systematic Review

机译:阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停的口腔矫治器最有效的向前运动量:系统评价

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This systematic review clarifies the amount of effective protrusion in mandibular advancement devices of oral appliances required for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Review Manager 5 and GRADEpro were used to combine trials and analyze data. The present review included three studies. In mild to moderate OSA cases, measured using the apnea–hypopnea index (AHI), 50% protrusion was more effective than 75% protrusion. However, 75% protrusion was more effective for severe cases. Sleep stage, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), snoring index, and side effects significantly differed between the groups. Additionally, 75% protrusion was more effective (AHI: 0.38, 95% CI: −0.89 to 1.65, p = 0.56; sleep stage 3: −1.20, 95% CI: 9.54–7.14, p = 0.78; ESS: 1.07, 95% CI: −0.09 to 2.24, p = 0.07; snoring index: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.05–0.13, p < 0.05; side effects: RR: 1.89, 95% CI: 0.36–9.92, p = 0.45). As per the AHI, 75% protrusion was effective in severe cases, whereas 50% protrusion was effective in moderate cases. Analysis of different surrogate outcomes indicated that 75% protrusion was more effective. Further, well-designed, larger trials should determine the benefits for patients. Additionally, investigations of adherence and side effects with long-term follow-up are needed.
机译:该系统评价阐明了阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)所需的口腔矫治器在下颌前移装置中的有效突出量。系统评价遵循系统评价和元分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。 Review Manager 5和GRADEpro用于合并试验和分析数据。本评价包括三项研究。在轻度至中度OSA病例中,使用呼吸暂停低通气指数(AHI)进行测量,50%的突出比75%的突出更有效。但是,对于严重的病例,75%的突出率更为有效。两组之间的睡眠阶段,爱泼华嗜睡量表(ESS),打指数和副作用显着不同。此外,75%的突伸更为有效(AHI:0.38,95%CI:-0.89至1.65,p = 0.56;睡眠阶段3:-1.20,95%CI:9.54-7.14,p = 0.78; ESS:1.07,95 %CI:-0.09至2.24,p = 0.07;打nor指数:0.09,95%CI:0.05-0.13,p <0.05;副作用:RR:1.89,95%CI:0.36-9.92,p = 0.45)。根据AHI,严重病例中75%的突出有效,而中度病例中50%的突出有效。对不同替代结果的分析表明,75%的突出更为有效。此外,设计合理的大型试验应确定对患者的益处。另外,需要对长期随访的依从性和副作用进行调查。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号