Position Paper by Canadian Dental Sleep Medicine Professionals Regarding the Role of Different Health Care Professionals in Managing Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Snoring with Oral Appliances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present Canadian position paper contains recommendations for the management by dentists of sleep-disordered breathing in adults with the use of oral appliances (OAs) as a treatment option for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The recommendations are based on literature reviews and expert panel consensus. OAs offer an effective, first-line treatment option for patients with mild to moderate OSA who prefer an OA to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy, or for severe OSA patients who cannot tolerate CPAP, are inappropriate candidates for CPAP or who have failed CPAP treatment attempts. The purpose of the present position paper is to guide interdisciplinary teamwork (sleep physicians and sleep dentists) and to clarify the role of each professional in the management of OA therapy. The diagnosis of OSA should always be made by a physician, and OAs should be fitted by a qualified dentist who is trained and experienced in dental sleep medicine. Follow-up assessment by the referring physician and polysomnography or sleep studies are required to verify treatment efficacy. The present article emphasizes the need for a team approach to OA therapy and provides treatment guidelines for dentists trained in dental sleep medicine. Many of the dentists and sleep physicians who contributed to the preparation of the present article are members of the Canadian Sleep Society and the authors reached a consensus based on the current literature.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".