|
Case Study of the Anatomic Changes Effected by a Mandibular
Advancement Device in a Sleep Apnea Patient
A. J. Moses - Assistant Professor, Rush University College of Medicine, Chicago IL,
USA Department of Sleep Disorders.
J. A. Bedoya - Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile Department of Oral
Surgery.
J. A. Learreta - Universidad Catolica de Salta, Buenos Aires, Argentina Department
of Orthodontics and Temporomandibular Pathologies.
An imaging study is presented to advance understanding
of how a Mandibular Advancement Device (MAD) used as
therapy for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) changes the shape
and volume of the oral airway.
Introduction
In lower animals the uvula overlaps the epiglottis. This
anatomic arrangement separates the oropharynx from the
nasopharynx and allows the animal to swallow and breathe
at the same time. Human babies have this same anatomic
configuration. At about six to nine months of age the epiglottis
begins to descend and the uvula ascends such that by two
years of age there is a vertical gap between them. Subsequent
to age two in humans, the foodway and the airway share the same
passage from the uvula to the epiglottis, and the boundaries of
this area are all soft tissues. This creates a compliant, collapsible
oropharynx. The front wall is the tongue and the side and rear
boundary is the pharyngeal wall.1
Humans are the only animals to have a collapsible oropharynx
and the only animals with the ability to articulate speech. All
vowel sounds are formed in this compliant, collapsible area.
Speech is the advantage. The disadvantages in humans are the
possibility of obstructive sleep apnea and choking.
The MAD actively repositions and supports the mandible
in a more anterior and open position than the position of maximum
interarch occlusion of teeth or physiological rest position
of the mandible. The tongue is attached to the mandible on
the lingual side of the symphysis, below the apex of the roots
of the mandibular central incisors. As the mandible is actively
advanced by the MAD, the tongue at its attachment is passively
pulled anteriorly away from the back wall of the oropharynx.
MADs are approved by the American Academy of Sleep
Medicine for use as primary therapy in cases of mild to moderate
OSA and in patients with more severe OSA who cannot tolerate
Continuous Positive Air Pressure (CPAP) therapy.3
What remains problematic is how MADs work. Studies report
that MADs increase posterior airway space,4, 5 and at least one
that demonstrates no change in posterior airway space.6 Passive
tongue advancement during general anesthesia has been reported
to increase both retropalatal and retroglossal areas.7 Studies
of the effect of protrusion consistently report that increased
protrusion produces greater reductions in restricted respiratory
events.8,9,10,11 Studies differ however on the impact of vertical
opening related to device efficiency and the amount of jaw
discomfort reported using the MAD.12,13,14,15

The hydrostat theory of tongue function was proposed by
Keir and Smith in 1985.16 It has been supported by scientific
testing for almost a quarter of a century.17,18,19 The most
important biomechanical characteristic of a muscular hydrostat
is that it is a structure of constant volume. Muscle tissue
is composed primarily of an aqueous liquid which is practically
incompressible at physiological pressures. Contraction
of muscle does not change its volume. Any decrease in one
dimension will cause a compensatory increase in at least one
other dimension in a muscular hydrostat.
The tongue being a hydrostat, in reasoning the mechanism
of action of a MAD, one must assume that tongue volume is
a constant. A tongue might change its shape but the volume
remains the same. MADs move the tongue out of the airway
at night but to accommodate this change it must increase the
volume of space for the tongue in the oral cavity.
Method
An open gantry cone beam 3 D computerized tomography
scanner, the ICAT™ by Imaging sciences International was used
for this study. High resolution, 360 scans produced images
at .2mm voxel size. 14 bit grayscale quality along all x, y,
and z-axes produced clear images in cross-sectional views. A
scan time of 40 seconds was used with beam collimation at
full height. The x-ray source was a high frequency, constant
potential, pulse mode at 120kVp and 3-8mA. The focal width
is .5mm and the image detector is an amorphous silicon flat
panel of 20cm. x 25cm.
The MAD used for this study was the Moses Appliance, a
two piece open-anterior device. The upper element is a .3mm
polypropylene-ethylene copolymer vacuum-formed splint
covering all maxillary teeth and trimmed to not touch the
gingiva. The lower element is made of methyl-methylacrylate
and built to maintain the dental arches in a position at the
maximum vertical height at which the patient can comfortably
close the lips, and the maximum protrusive position that
the patient can comfortably tolerate.



Discussion
The effectiveness of MADs used as treatment for OSA have
been thoroughly referenced in an updated (2006) American
Academy of Sleep Medicine review paper.20 That MADs work
is well established. How they work is a subject of continuing
research.
This case report demonstrates that the MAD studied,
constructed to a jaw position of increased vertical and sagittal
position substantially increases the size of the airway lumen in
the retroglossal and palatal regions in all possible dimensions.
The term oral airway dilator may be a more suitable descriptor
than simply mandibular advancement device.
This study was done with the patient awake and seated
upright. A preliminary study by the lead author using a different
CT scanner with the patient in the supine position did not
show any appreciable changes in awake airway measurements.
Sleep could certainly affect the airway dynamics from upright
and awake to the sleep state. The actual role of the tongue during
sleep was not directly dealt with in this study. It is certainly an
excellent subject for a future research study.
Reference
1. Crelin ES, The human Vocal Tract: Anatomy, Function, Development
and Evolution, Vantage Press, New York, 1987.
2.
Netter F, illustration in Crelin ES, Development of the Upper
Respiratory System, Clinical Symposia, Vol 28, Num. 3, 1976,
Ciba Pharmaceutical Co, New Jersey.
3. Kushida CA, Morganthaler TI, et.al. Practice Parameters for the
Treatment of Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea with Oral Appliances:
An Update for 2005. Sleep, Vol 29, No 2, 2006, p 240–243.
4.
Ishida M, Inoue Y, Suto Y, et.al. Mechanism of Action and Theraputic
Indication of Prosthetic Mandibular Advancement in Obstructive
Sleep Apnea Syndrome. Psychiatry Cli Neurosci, Vol 52, 227–229,
1998.
5.
Schmidt-Nowara WW, Meade TE, Hayes MB, Treatment of Snoring
and Obstructive Sleep Apnea with a Dental Orthosis, Chest, Vol 99,
p 1378–1385.
6. Eveloff SE, Rosenberg CL, Carlisle CC, Millman RP, Rfficacy of
a Herbst Mandibular Advancement Device in Obstructive Sleep
Apnea, Amer J Respir Crit Care Med, Vol 149, P 905–909, 1994.
7.
Isono S, Tanaka A, Sho Y, et.al. Advancement of the Mandible
Improves Velopharyngeal Airway Patency, J Appl Physiol Vol 79,
2132–2138, 1995.
8.
Walker-Engstrom ML, Ringqvist I, Vestling O, et.al. A Prospective
Randomized Study Comparing Two Different degrees of Mandibular
Advancement With a Dental Appliance in Treatment of Severe
Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Sleep Breath Vol 7, P 119–130, 2003.
9.
Esaki K, Kanegae H, Uchida T, et.al. Treatment of Sleep Apnea
with a New Separated Type of Dental Appliance (Mandibular
Advancing Positioner). Kurume Med J, V44, p315–319, 1997
10. Marklin M, Franklin KA, Sahlin C, et.al. The Effect of a Mandibular
Advancement Device on Apneas and Sleep in Patients with Obstructive
Sleep Apnea, Chest, Vol 113, p 707–713, 1998.
11.
De Almeida FR, Bittencourt LR, de Almeida CI, et.al. Effects of
Mandibular Posture on Obstructive Sleep Apnea Severity and the
Temporomandibular Joint in Patients fitted with an Oral Appliance,
Sleep, Vol 25, p507–513, 2002.
12. Pitsis AJ, Darendaliler MA, Gotsopoulos H, et.al. Effect of Vertical
Dimension on Efficacy of Oral Appliance Therapy in Obstructive
Sleep Apnea, Am J Resp Crit Care Med, Vol 166, p 860-864, 2002.
13.
Rose E, Staats R, Virchow C, et.al. A Comparative Study of Two
Mandibular Advancement Appliances for the Treatment of
Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Eur J Orthod Vol 24, p191–198, 2002.
14.
Pantin CC, Hillman DR, and Tennant M, Dental Side Effects of an
Oral Device to Treat Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Sleep,
Vol 22, p237–240, 1999.
15. Bondemark L, Does 2 Years' Nocturnal Treatment with a Mandibular
Advancement Splint in Adult Patients with Snoring and OSAs
Cause a Change in the Posture of the Mandible? Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop Vol 116, p 621–628.
16. Keir WM, Smith KK, Tongues, Tentacles, and Trunks: the Biomechanics
of Movement in Muscular Hydrostats, Zoo J Linnaen Soc.
Vol 83, p307–324, 1985.
17.
Bailey EF, Fregosi RF, Coordination of Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Tongue Muscles During Spontaneous Breathing in the Rat, J Appl
Physiol, Vol 96, p.440–448, 2004.
18.
Gilbert RJ, Napadow VJ, Gaige TA et.al. Anatomic Basis of Lingual
Deformation, J Exp Biol, Vol 210, No 23, 2007.
19.
Levine WS, Torcaso CE, Stone M, Controlling the Shape of a Muscular
Hydrostat: A Tongue or a Tentacle? Springer Berlin, Heidelberg,
Vol 321, 2005.
20.
Ferguson KA, Cartwright R, Rogers R, et. al. Oral Appliances for
Snoring and Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Review, Sleep, Vol 29,
No 2, p 244–262, 2006.
Journal
List
|