MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365139308 · doi:10.15331/jdsm.7290

Mandibular Advancement Device Effects on the Upper Airway Anatomy and Function: An Umbrella Review

2023· article· en· W4365139308 on OpenAlexaff
Silvia Gianoni‐Capenakas, Da In Kim, Pedro Mayoral

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Sleep Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirwayAnatomyMedicineOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Objectives:To summarize systematic reviews regarding function and anatomy of the upper airway and subjective evaluations on breathing capability depending on the advancement and/or opening of the mandible.Methods: Four databases were searched based on inclusion criteria.Two independent reviewers evaluated abstracts of all articles for phase 1 and full text in phase 2 of selection.The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement was used as a guideline; weaknesses were assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool.Results: Twelve systematic reviews were included.Mandibular protrusion greater than 50% of maximum protrusion results in a decrease of apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) by an average of 62.3% and an increase in oxygen saturation (SaO2).These findings correlate with dimensional changes in the upper airway, tongue, soft palate, and hyoid positions.Changes in the nasopharynx are minimal; however, significant volumetric increase of the oropharynx after mandibular advancement device (MAD) use in growing patients was observed.Improved Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores were reported for all included studies in one review.All MAD designs reviewed in the study show the potential to reduce AHI and respiratory disturbance index, with slightly lower AHI levels with those devices favoring more anterior than vertical mandibular movement.Conclusion: Devices that favor progressive mandibular advancement with less vertical opening have the potential to decrease AHI and increase SaO2.Findings of this review can help clinicians determine titration amounts of mandibular advancement for specific patients and can help gauge the level of MAD efficacy on patients with sleep apnea. Statement of Significance:Approximately 80 million Americans have sleep disordered breathing (SDB); 1 of 5 have mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and 1 of 15 have moderate to severe OSA.Part of the population in whom SDB/OSA has been diagnosed for any reason cannot use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP).The alternate treatment is the mandibular advancement device (MAD).The MAD's function is to protrude and help stabilize the mandible to maintain a patent upper airway during sleep.MAD accounts for approximately 5% of the total OSA therapy in the United States, and some patients have indications to use MAD rather than CPAP.Therefore, it is of utmost importance to summarize the literature about MAD use and its effects on the respiratory capability of patients in whom SDB is diagnosed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental Sleep MedicineSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207