Articles |

A Randomized Crossover Study of an Oral Appliance vs Nasal-Continuous Positive Airway Pressure in the Treatment of Mild-Moderate Obstructive Sleep Apnea FREE TO VIEW

Kathleen A. Ferguson; Takashi Ono; Alan A. Lowe; Sean P. Keenan; John A. Fleetham
Author and Funding Information

From the Division of Respiratory Medicine and Department of Clinical Dental Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.


Chest. 1996;109(5):1269-1275. doi:10.1378/chest.109.5.1269
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Study objective: To compare efficacy, side effects, patient compliance, and preference between oral appliance (OA) therapy and nasal-continuous positive airway pressure (N-CPAP) therapy.

Design: Randomized, prospective, crossover study.

Setting: University hospital and tertiary sleep referral center.

Patients: Twenty-seven unselected patients with mild-moderate obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

Interventions: There was a 2-week wash-in and a 2-week wash-out period, and 2x4-month treatment periods (OA and N-CPAP). Efficacy, side effects, compliance, and preference were evaluated by a questionnaire and home sleep monitoring.

Measurements and results: Two patients dropped out early in the study and treatment results are presented on the remaining 25 patients. The apnea/hypopnea index was lower with N-CPAP (3.5±1.6) (mean±SD) than with the OA (9.7±7.3) (p<0.05). Twelve of the 25 patients who used the OA (48%) were treatment successes (reduction of apnea/hypopnea to <10/h and relief of symptoms), 6 (24%) were compliance failures (unable or unwilling to use the treatment), and 7 (28%) were treatment failures (failure to reduce apnea/hypopnea index to <10/h and/or failure to relieve symptoms). Four people refused to use N-CPAP after using the OA. Thirteen of the 21 patients who used N-CPAP were overall treatment successes (62%), 8 were compliance failures (38%), and there were no treatment failures. Side effects were more common and the patients were less satisfied with N-CPAP (p<0.005). Seven patients were treatment successes with both treatments, six of these patients preferred OA, and one preferred N-CPAP as a long-term treatment.

Conclusions: We conclude that OA is an effective treatment in some patients with mild-moderate OSA and is associated with fewer side effects and greater patient satisfaction than N-CPAP.




Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543