English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose Assess the impact of custom oral appliance (CA) fabrication settings on treatment outcomes. Methods CPAP-intolerant patients completed a two-night home-sleep-apnea study (HSAT); Night1=baseline, Night2=Apnea Guard® trial appliance (AG). The AG vertical-dimension-of-occlusion (VDO) selection was based on tongue-scallop (women=5.5/6.5 mm, men= 6.5/8.0 mm), with a target protrusion of 70% from neutral-maximum while in situ. Study1 CA VDO was dependent on sex (women=2.5 mm, men=5 mm), with protrusion set using a George-Gauge measured 70% from maximum retrusion-protrusion with dentist-directed titration. Study2 CA was fabricated to the AG VDO and target protrusion bite-registration. Efficacy HSATs were conducted after completion of Study1 CA titration with vertical-elastics optional, and at the AG target protrusion with vertical-elastics mandatory in Study2. Statistics included Mann-Whitney, Chi-squared, and Bland-Altman analyses. Results The Study1 (n=84) and Study2 (n=46) distributions were equivalent for tongue-scallop (64/63%) and sex (women=45/41%), however, noted differences in age (53.8±11.9 vs. 58.4±12.2; P=0.052), body-mass-index (29.4±5.7 vs. 27.8±4.0; P=0.128) and pre-treatment AHI severities (24.6±14.4 vs. 29.2±17.4 events/h; P=0.155) were observed. The Bland-Altman biases were significant different (Study1=4.2±7.8 vs. Study2=1.3±7.0 events/h, P=0.035). The significant Study1 differences between the CA vs. AG AHIs (12.3±9.2 vs. 8.2±5.9 events/h, P&amp;lt;0.0002) were not apparent in Study2 (11.7±8.0 vs. 10.4±6.7 events/h, P=0.362), however, the Study2 AG AHI values were higher (P=0.055). Discussion Despite the trend toward greater Study2 pre-treatment and AG AHI severities, CA treatment efficacy was equivalent to the AG once VMO was controlled and fabricated using the AG VDO and protrusion bite-registration. These findings confirmed CA fabrication settings impact treatment outcomes.

P078 Oral Appliance Fabrication Settings Impact Treatment Efficacy