Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:10903249rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0087111lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10903249lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0037315lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10903249lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0034656lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10903249lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0150097lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10903249lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0442027lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10903249lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0243112lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10903249lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2587213lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:issue1lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:dateCreated2000-9-13lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:abstractTextOur purpose was to compare the effectiveness and side effects of a novel, single-piece mandibular advancement device (OSA-Monobloc) for sleep apnea therapy with those of a two-piece appliance with lateral Herbst attachments (OSA-Herbst) as used in previous studies. An OSA-Monobloc and an OSA-Herbst with equal protrusion were fitted in 24 obstructive sleep apnea patients unable to use continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. After an adaptation period of 156 +/- 14 d (mean +/- SE), patients used the OSA-Monobloc, the OSA-Herbst, and no appliance in random order, using each appliance for 1 wk. Symptom scores were recorded and sleep studies were done at the end of each week. Several symptom scores were significantly improved with both appliances, but to a greater degree with the OSA-Monobloc. Epworth Sleepiness Scale scores were 8.8 +/- 0.7 with the OSA-Herbst, and 8.6 +/- 0.8 with the OSA-Monobloc devices, and 13.1 +/- 0.9 without therapy (p < 0.05 versus both appliances). The apnea/hypopnea index was 8.7 +/- 1.5/h with the OSA-Herbst and 7.9 +/- 1.6/h with the OSA-Monobloc device, and 22.6 +/- 3.1/h without therapy (p < 0.05 versus both appliances). Side effects were mild and of equal prevalence with both appliances. Fifteen patients preferred the OSA-Monobloc, eight patients had no preference, and one patient preferred the OSA-Herbst device (p < 0.008 versus OSA-Monobloc). We conclude that both the OSA-Herbst and the OSA-Monobloc are effective therapeutic devices for sleep apnea. The OSA-Monobloc relieved symptoms to a greater extent than the OSA-Herbst, and was preferred by the majority of patients on the basis of its simple application.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:citationSubsetAIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:monthJullld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:issn1073-449Xlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:authorpubmed-author:IseliAAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BlochK EKElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:authorpubmed-author:XinQQlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ZhangJ NJNlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:authorpubmed-author:RussiE WEWlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KaplanVVlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:authorpubmed-author:StoeckliP WPWlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:volume162lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:pagination246-51lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10903249...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10903249...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10903249...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10903249...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10903249...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10903249...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10903249...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10903249...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:year2000lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:articleTitleA randomized, controlled crossover trial of two oral appliances for sleep apnea treatment.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. pneubloc@usz.unizh.chlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:publicationTypeClinical Triallld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:publicationTypeRandomized Controlled Triallld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10903249pubmed:publicationTypeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tlld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:10903249lld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:10903249lld:pubmed