Continuous positive airway pressure versus mandibular advancement device in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The goal of this study was to review relevant randomized controlled trials in order to determine the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus mandibular advancement device (MAD) in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods: Using appropriate keywords, we identified relevant studies using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. Key pertinent sources in the literature were also reviewed, and all articles published through October 2019 were considered for inclusion. For each study, we used odds ratios (ORs), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) to assess and synthesize outcomes. Results: We included 14 RCTs, for a total of 249 patients in the CPAP group and 247 in the MAD group. Compared with MAD, CPAP significantly decreased apnea hypopnea index (AHI) (WMD: -7.08, 95% CI: -9.06 similar to-5.10) and the percentage of stage 1 and 2 after therapy (WMD: -3.728, 95%CI: -6.912 similar to-0.543). However, compared with MAD, CPAP significantly decreased the SF-36-social function score (WMD: -3.381, 95%CI: -6.607 similar to-0.154).There was no significant difference in Epworth sleepiness scale score after therapy between the two groups. Conclusion: CPAP has better therapeutic efficacy in OSA patients than MAD. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.