The role of oral appliance therapy in obstructive sleep apnoea
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is now widespread recognition within the world of sleep medicine of the increasing importance of dental sleep medicine and, in particular, the role of oral appliance therapy (OAT) in the management of adults with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). For the purpose of this review, the term OAT refers to a custom-made intra-oral appliance, which acts to posture the mandible in a forward and downward direction, away from its natural resting position. Whilst nasally applied continuous positive airway pressure remains the “gold standard” in nonsurgical OSA management, OAT remains the recognised alternative treatment. This review of OAT aims to provide an evidence-based update on our current understanding of their mode of action, exploring the potential anatomical and physiological impact of their use in preventing collapse of the upper airway; the current clinical practice guidelines, including the recently published National Institute of Clinical Excellence 2021 guidance, in conjunction with the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine; optimal design features, comparing the role of custom-made versus noncustom OAT devices and the importance of titration in achieving a dose-dependent effect; patient predictors, preference and adherence to OAT; its impact on a range of both patient- and clinician-centred health outcomes, with a comparison with CPAP; the limitations and side-effects of providing OAT; and, finally, a look at future considerations to help optimise the delivery and outcomes of OAT.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it