Tag Archives: Oral Appliance

Heat-Cured Hard Acrylic VS Dual Laminate Appliances

Weekend courses teaching oral appliance therapy are conducted all over the country and with over 100 commercially available oral appliances it can be really difficult to navigate the appliance selection process. Considering the mechanical functioning of the appliance is essential when determining which one to choose for treatment, but often times the material used to construct the appliance is equally as important and overlooked. Two of the most generally known materials are heat-cured hard acrylic and dual laminates. Studies have shown that while there are advantages and disadvantages to each material, most doctors favor heat-cured hard acrylic appliances because they have a compelling superiority over the latter when it comes to fitting, repairs, longevity and patient comfort.

Some of the most pressing issues in doctors’ offices are fitting the appliance correctly in the patient’s mouth. Obstructive sleep apnea is a serious medical condition that can sometimes be so severe that doctors don’t have time to send back an appliance to be remade if it doesn’t fit. National statistics show a lower percentage of remakes in hard acrylic formed appliances. The reason for this can partly be credited to ease of modification chairside due to minor cosmetic dental changes. If anything changes in the patient’s mouth for example, the addition of a crown, a completely new appliance must be created as realignment can’t be done in laminate appliances. On a hard acrylic appliance, the appliance can sometimes be ground to re-fit. Furthermore, the addition of clasps in hard acrylic appliances provide further retention whereas a laminate appliance does not allow for it to contain clasps.

Repairs are inevitable when it comes to oral appliances. Fortunately when repairs are necessary, the ramifications can be minimized simply by the choice of appliance design. Doctors can take a more basic approach to repairing hard acrylic appliances including, but not limited to, effortlessly bonding new acrylic to cracks or chips in their own. Mending a laminate appliance can become more complicated when considering the soft liner located on the inside. Many times that same soft layer has been shown to absorb moisture and start to yellow with bacteria. Unfortunately this is not a matter of repair, rather a matter of replacement.

Gergen’s Orthodontic Lab, which is the largest manufacturer of the Sleep Herbst in the country, has seen hard acrylic appliances last over to 20 years. Regrettably, the soft layer in laminate appliances always eventually loses the bond to the hard layer- meaning it will always peel apart over time, leading to the doctor sending it back to the manufacturing lab to be rebuilt.

Typically patient comfort is one of the cornerstones of the decision making process in choosing treatments. While each of the designs have equal amounts of pros and cons to patient satisfaction, time and time again there have been proven patterns and methods that demonstrate it is easier to overcome the cons associated with treatment via hard acrylic appliances. This is contrary to general belief being that dual laminates are more comfortable. Moreover, tongue space is greatly reduced in dual laminate appliances due to the extra layer being present.

All things considered, both hard acrylic and dual laminate appliances grant favorable benefits in many cases. Clearly though when taking into account the comparison of both designs regarding fitting, repairs, longevity and patient comfort the preferred choice when selecting one of the two is the hard acrylic design more often than not.

Alan Hickey

Alan Hickey

Publisher of Sleep Diagnosis and Therapy Journal the Official publication of the American Sleep and Breathing Academy, the Journal is a clinical and technical publication for dental and medical professionals.

More Posts

A systematic review of the efficacy of oral appliance design in the management of obstructive sleep apnoea

Source

Discipline of Dental Public Health.

Abstract

Oral appliances (OAs) are increasingly advocated as a treatment option for obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). However, it is unclear how their different design features influence treatment efficacy. The aim of this research was to systematically review the evidence on the efficacy of different OAs on polysomnographic indices of OSA. A MeSH and text word search were developed for Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane library. The initial search identified 1475 references, of which 116 related to studies comparing OAs with control appliances. Among those, 14 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which formed the basis of this review. The type of OA investigated in these trials was mandibular advancement devices (MADs), which were compared with either inactive appliances (six studies) or other types of MADs with different design features. Compared with inactive appliances, all MADs improved polysomnographic indices, suggesting that mandibular advancement is a crucial design feature of OA therapy for OSA. The evidence shows that there is no one MAD design that most effectively improves polysomnographic indices, but that efficacy depends on a number of factors including severity of OSA, materials and method of fabrication, type of MAD (monobloc/twin block), and the degree of protrusion (sagittal and vertical). These findings highlight the absence of a universal definition of treatment success. Future trials of MAD designs need to be assessed according to agreed success criteria in order to guide clinical practice as to which design of OAs may be the most effective in the treatment of OSA.

Eur J Orthod. 2011 Jan 13.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay

Related posts:

  1. Subjective efficacy of oral appliance design features in the management of obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review
  2. Effects on blood pressure after treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea with a mandibular advancement appliance – a three-year follow-up
  3. Use of Watch-PAT™ in the Management of Sleep Apnea Using Oral Appliance Therapy – David Barone

Subjective efficacy of oral appliance design features in the management of obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review

Source

Discipline of Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

The purpose of this study was to review available evidence on the efficacy of various oral appliances on subjectively perceived symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

METHODS:

A search of 4 databases was carried out. Articles were initially selected based on their titles or abstracts. Full articles were then retrieved and further scrutinized according to predetermined criteria. Reference lists of selected articles were searched for any missed publications. The finally selected articles were methodologically evaluated.

RESULTS:

Of an initial 1475 references, 14 studies were randomized controlled trials, which formed the basis of this review. Mandibular advancement devices (MADs) were compared with either inactive appliances (6 studies) or MADs with different design features (8 studies). In comparison with inactive appliances, the majority of studies showed improved subjective outcomes with MADs, suggesting that mandibular advancement is a crucial design feature of oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS:

There is no 1 MAD design that most effectively influences subjectively perceived treatment efficacy, but efficacy depends on many factors including materials and method used for fabrication, type of MAD (monoblock or Twin-block), and the degree of protrusion (sagittal and vertical). This review highlights the absence of universally agreed subjective assessment tools and health-related quality of life outcomes in the literature today. Future trials of MAD designs need to assess subjective efficacy with agreed standardized tools and health-related quality of life measures to guide clinical practicitioners about which design might be most effective in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome with oral appliances.

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Nov;138(5):559-76.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay

Related posts:

  1. Effects of Mandibular Posture on Obstructive Sleep Apnea Severity and the Temporomandibular Joint in Patients Fitted with an Oral Appliance
  2. Use of Watch-PAT™ in the Management of Sleep Apnea Using Oral Appliance Therapy – David Barone
  3. Use of Flow–Volume Curves to Predict Oral Appliance Treatment Outcome in Obstructive Sleep Apnea

A randomized, controlled, crossover study of a noncustomized tongue retaining device for sleep disordered breathing

SLEEP AND BREATHINGVolume 12, Number 4, 369-373, DOI: 10.1007/s11325-008-0187-5

Tongue retaining devices (TRDs) are one type of oral appliance used to treat sleep disordered breathing. Previous studies have evaluated customized TRDs in comparison to mandibular repositioner appliances. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a noncustomized TRD compared to a control device. A randomized, controlled, crossover design was utilized. The primary outcome was the difference in reduction of the respiratory disturbance index (RDI) between the active suction device (S) and the control, nonsuction device (NS). Secondary outcomes included snoring index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale as well as patient and partner quality-of-life index. Crossover analysis found that only the S device significantly reduced the RDI by 4.9 (95% confidence interval 0.85–8.9) events more than the NS device. This represented a reduction in mean RDI from baseline of 15.5 (±17.6) to 8.9 (±7.6) with the S device. Significant reduction in snoring index was also only found with the S device (214.7–132.9 per hour). Fifty-four percent of subjects indicated they would continue to use only the S device. The S device, with suction, showed better objective and subjective outcomes. Future studies are needed to evaluate these types of devices in larger populations with a wide range of disease severity.

This Article comes to us from Christina LaJoie from Great Lakes. Christina has been working to advance the knowledge of Dental Sleep Medicine since the very first meetings on the topic. She is an excellent resource her contact information is below. I have also included a link to the Great Lakes ortho site should you wish to vie the product

Randy Clare

Christina Marie LaJoie

Sleep Specialist

Great Lakes Orthodontics

200 Cooper Ave.

Tonawanda, NY  14150

Direct Toll Free: 866-781-5073

http://www.greatlakesortho.com/commerce/detail/index.cfm?nPID=1872

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay

Related posts:

  1. A Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled, Crossover Evaluation of Natural Frequency Technology™ and Sleep Natural Frequency Technology on Sleep in Normal Subjects with Un-refreshing Sleep
  2. A Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled, Crossover Evaluation of Natural Frequency Technology™ and Sleep Natural Frequency Technology on Sleep in Normal Subjects with Un-refreshing Sleep
  3. A Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled, Crossover Evaluation of Natural Frequency Technology™ and Sleep Natural Frequency Technology on Sleep in Normal Subjects with Un-refreshing Sleep

Related posts