Does the QuietLabPro (QLP) mouthpiece effectively reduce symptoms as advertised?

From the Guidelines

Based on the most recent and highest quality evidence, I strongly recommend that the effectiveness of QuietLabPro mouthpiece for snoring or sleep apnea should be evaluated on an individual basis, considering the specific cause of snoring, severity of sleep apnea, proper fit, and consistent use, as stated in the 2015 clinical practice guideline for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea and snoring with oral appliance therapy 1.

Key Considerations

• The device's effectiveness in reducing snoring and sleep apnea symptoms can vary significantly from person to person.
• A custom, titratable appliance is suggested over non-custom oral devices when oral appliance therapy is prescribed by a sleep physician for an adult patient with obstructive sleep apnea, as it has been shown to reduce the apnea-hypopnea index, arousal index, and oxygen desaturation index, and increase oxygen saturation to a greater extent than non-custom OAs 1.
• Proper fitting by a qualified dentist and regular follow-up are crucial to ensure the device's effectiveness and minimize potential side effects, such as jaw discomfort, tooth movement, or excessive salivation.

Important Factors to Consider

• The presence or absence of OSA must be determined before initiating treatment with oral appliances to identify those patients at risk due to complications of sleep apnea and to provide a baseline to establish the effectiveness of subsequent OA treatment, as recommended in the 2009 clinical guideline for the evaluation, management and long-term care of obstructive sleep apnea in adults 1.
• Patients should undergo a thorough dental examination to assess candidacy for an OA, including a dental history, complete intra-oral examination, and evaluation of occlusion, as outlined in the 2009 clinical guideline 1.
• The severity of sleep-related respiratory problems must be established to make an appropriate treatment decision, and oral appliances should be monitored shortly after initiation of treatment and then as frequently as needed to assure patient accommodation, comfort, adequate device titration, and adherence, and to assess symptoms and side effects, as recommended in the 2009 clinical guideline 1.

From the Research

Effectiveness of Oral Appliances in Obstructive Sleep Apnea

• Oral appliances, such as mandibular advancement devices (MAD), are effective in reducing the severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) 2, 3.
• MAD devices work by advancing the mandible forward to enlarge the upper airway and prevent collapse during sleep 4.
• Studies have shown that oral appliance therapy can improve sleep-disordered breathing in patients with OSA, although it may not be as effective as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy 4, 2, 5.

Comparison with CPAP Therapy

• CPAP is considered the gold standard of treatment for OSA, but compliance rates can be low due to discomfort and noise 4.
• Oral appliance therapy has been shown to be non-inferior to CPAP in terms of short-term health outcomes, such as 24-hour mean arterial pressure and quality of life 5.
• Some studies have found that patients prefer oral appliance therapy over CPAP due to its ease of use and comfort 5.

Safety and Side Effects

• Oral appliance therapy can cause temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and pain in the initial period of use, but these effects are generally transient and not serious 6.
• Long-term use of oral appliances does not appear to result in significant limitations in mandibular function or increased risk of TMDs 6.

Conclusion is not allowed, so the information will be presented as a continuation of the previous section

Patient Preference and Compliance

• Patient preference for oral appliance therapy over CPAP can be attributed to its ease of use, comfort, and lack of noise 5.
• Compliance with oral appliance therapy has been shown to be similar to or better than CPAP therapy in some studies 2, 5.