Aggravation of respiratory disturbances by the use of an occlusal splint in apneic patients: a pilot study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This pilot study was designed to test the hypothesis that the use of a single oral splint may aggravate respiratory disturbance in sleep apneic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of 10 patients with a history of snoring and a recording night confirming a diagnosis of sleep apnea were included. Patients were then invited to spend 2 nights in the sleep laboratory: night 2 to establish baseline data (baseline night) and night 3, 1 week later, to assess the influence of an occlusal maxillary splint on sleep (splint night). The following variables were analyzed under blind conditions: total sleep time, sleep efficiency and number of awakenings, microarousals, apnea-hypopnea index per hour of sleep (AHI), respiratory disturbances index per hour of sleep (RDI), and percentage of sleeping time with snoring. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in AHI was noted between baseline and splint nights. However, four patients experienced an aggravation in apnea diagnosis category on the night they used the splint. The AHI was increased by more than 50% in 5 of the 10 patients. The RDI showed a 30% increase from baseline to splint nights. The percentage of sleeping time with snoring also increased by 40% with the splint. CONCLUSION: This open study suggested that the use of an occlusal splint is associated with a risk of aggravation of respiratory disturbances. It may therefore be relevant for clinicians to question patients about snoring and sleep apnea when recommending an occlusal splint.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".