Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 3, 2026

Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy (DISE) with Target Controlled Infusion (TCI) and Bispectral Analysis in Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Published on: December 6, 2016
Comparative effects of two oral appliances on upper airway structure in obstructive sleep apnea
Kate Sutherland1, Sheryn A Deane, Andrew S L Chan
1Centre for Sleep Health and Research, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Study Objectives:
Oral appliances are increasingly being used for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Mandibular advancement splint (MAS) mechanically protrudes the mandible, while the tongue stabilizing device (TSD) protrudes and holds the tongue using suction. Although both appliances can significantly improve or ameliorate OSA, their comparative effects on upper airway structure have not been investigated.
Design:
Cohort study.
Setting:
Sleep Investigation Unit.
Patients:
39 patients undergoing oral appliance treatment for OSA.
Interventions:
OSA patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the upper airway during wakefulness at baseline and with MAS and TSD in randomized order. Treatment efficacy was determined by polysomnography in a subset of 18 patients.
Measurements And Results:
Upper airway lumen and surrounding soft tissue structures were segmented using image analysis software. Upper airway dimensions and soft tissue centroid movements were determined. Both appliances altered upper airway geometry, associated with movement of the parapharyngeal fat pads away from the airway. TSD increased velopharyngeal lateral diameter to a greater extent (+0.35 ± 0.07 vs. +0.18 ± 0.05 cm; P<0.001) and also increased antero-posterior diameter with anterior displacement of the tongue (0.68 ± 0.04 cm; P<0.001) and soft palate (0.12 ± 0.03 cm; P<0.001). MAS resulted in significant anterior displacement of the tongue base muscles (0.35 ± 0.04 cm). TSD responders (AHI reduction ≥50%) increased velopharyngeal volume more than non-responders (+2.65 ± 0.9 vs. -0.44 ± 0.8 cm(3); P < 0.05). Airway structures did not differ between MAS responders and non-responders.
Conclusions:
These results indicate that the patterns and magnitude of changes in upper airway structure differ between appliances. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the clinical relevance of these changes, and whether they can be used to predict treatment outcome.
Related Concept Videos
Sleep Apnea
The condition is more prevalent among...
Suctioning the Oropharyngeal Airway
After assembling the equipment, the nurse should practice hand hygiene and don appropriate PPE according to infection control guidelines to avoid the...
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation II: ACLS Airway Management

