Investigating the association between obstructive sleep apnea and periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a sleep disorder characterized by disruptions of normal sleep architecture. Chronic periodontitis is a chronic disease of the periodontium that elicits a general inflammatory response to local dental plaque. It has been suggested that periodontal disease may increase in severity with increasingly severe OSA because both disease entities share common inflammatory pathways, acting synergistically to alter the host response. The aim of this study is to analyze the association between severity of OSA and the prevalence/severity of periodontitis. METHODS: One hundred patients from a large veterans administration sleep study center (n = 26 normal, n = 21 mild, n = 19 moderate, n = 34 severe) diagnosed with an overnight polysomnogram underwent a comprehensive periodontal examination. Periodontal parameters measured included the following: 1) mean periodontal probing depth (PD); 2) clinical attachment level (CAL); 3) gingival recession; and 4) percentage of sites with bleeding on probing, plaque, PD ≥5 mm, and CAL ≥3 mm. RESULTS: Seventy-three percent of the sampled population had moderate/severe periodontal disease. χ(2) analyses revealed no significant differences in the prevalence of periodontal disease between the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) groups, with a negligible Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.246 between AHI severity and periodontal disease severity categories. Analysis of covariance indicated a significant association between AHI severity categories and percentage of sites with plaque, after adjusting for age. Multivariable logistic regression analysis predicting moderate/severe periodontitis with AHI score, age, and smoking status indicated a significant association with age (P = 0.028) but no significant association with the other two predictors. CONCLUSION: OSA was not significantly associated with the prevalence of moderate/severe periodontitis and the periodontal parameters examined, except percentage plaque.

A randomized crossover study comparing two mandibular repositioning appliances for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether treatment outcomes vary according to the design of the mandibular repositioning appliance (MRA). Two titratable MRA's were compared. The designs differ in advancement hardware and configuration of acrylic both in bulk and interocclusal contact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary treatment outcome was the Respiratory Disturbance Index (RDI). Other outcomes that were compared included Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index (SAQLI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, oxygen saturation, and subjective feedback regarding experiences with the appliances. Twenty-four subjects were recruited from consecutive referrals for MRA therapy following diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) by polysomnography. Subjects were randomly assigned to a treatment arm of the crossover study. Each subject underwent an initial sleep study with a type III home monitor to establish a baseline RDI. Subjects were then treated with one of the two MRAs determined by random assignment. The MRA self-titration phase was monitored until a treatment position was determined, and the home sleep study was repeated. After a 2-week period without any OSA treatment, subjects received the second MRA and the self-titration treatment protocol was repeated. At completion of treatment with each appliance, subjects answered questionnaires and underwent a sleep study with the type III monitor. The outcome data for each appliance were compared using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Eighteen subjects completed the treatment protocol. There were no significant statistical differences in treatment outcomes between the two appliances. There was a statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) preference for a MRA design with minimal coverage of teeth and palate. The subjects' appliance selection was consistent with a corresponding reduction in SAQLI score for the selected appliance. CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant difference was observed between the two appliances in the outcomes measured, there was a trend toward greater improvement with the appliance with less acrylic resin bulk and less interocclusal contact. MRA selection should favor titratable, unobtrusive designs with appropriate construction to promote acceptance and adherence to MRA therapy.