Oral appliance therapy vs. positional therapy for managing positional obstructive sleep apnea; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.
Systematic Review
To assess the efficacy of positional therapy and oral appliance therapy for the management of positional obstructive sleep apnea./r/nWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and SCOPUS for relevant clinical trials. Quality assessment of the included trials was evaluated according to Cochrane’s risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), AHI non-supine, AHI supine, sleep efficiency, percentage of supine sleep, Adherence (≥ 4 h/night, ≥ 5 days/week), Oxygen desaturation Index, Arousal Index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (ESS), Mean SpO2, and Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire./r/nThe AHI non-supine and the ESS scores were significantly lower in the OAT cohort than in the PT cohort. The PT cohort was associated with a significantly decreased percentage of supine sleep than the OAT cohort (MD= -26.07 [-33.15, -19.00], P = 0.0001). There was no significant variation between PT cohort and OAT cohort regarding total AHI, AHI supine, ODI, sleep efficiency, arousal index, FOSQ, adherence, and mean SpO2./r/nBoth Positional Therapy and Oral Appliance Therapy effectively addressed Obstructive Sleep Apnea. However, Oral Appliance Therapy exhibited higher efficiency, leading to increased supine sleep percentage and more significant reductions in the Apnea Hypopnea Index during non-supine positions, as well as lower scores on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale.
