LAUSR

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine differences in effectiveness between two types of mandibular advancement device (MAD).Material and methodsIn this retrospective, cohort study, the two devices used were MAD type “Somnodent-Flex” (MAD 1) and MAD type “Herbst” (MAD 2). One hundred thirty-seven patients participated in this study, 67 patients were treated with MAD 1, and 70 patients with MAD 2. The indication MAD with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is based on a polysomnography test, in accordance with the CBO guidelines. The effectiveness of MAD therapy can be determined by a second polysomnography test (with the MAD in situ). The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) is registered during the first and the second polysomnography test. Changes in these values determine the effectiveness.ResultsA significant decrease in AHI was found regarding T1 and T2 for both the MADs: F (1, 134) = 140,850, p < 0,001. The mean differences of both the MADs turned out to correlate to T1. After correcting for this covariance, there was no significant difference between the two MAD devices regarding the AHI value: F (1, 134) = 1160, p = 0,283.ConclusionsThe results of the present study show no significant difference in effectiveness between MAD 1 and MAD 2 in respect to the AHI value.Clinical relevanceSince 2012, healthcare insurance companies in the Netherlands refunds MAD type “Somnodent” used for treatment of sleep apnea. It is important to investigate if this type of MAD is as more effective or less effective as other types of MADs. If research points out that other MADs are more effective in reducing the sleep apnea, refund policies have to be adapted.