Search

Purpose: Continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) is recommended for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) but cost and compliance are major barriers. A mandibular advancement device (MAD) may be an economical, feasible alternative to CPAP. Various studies have been published to recommend MAD as an alternative to CPAP for OSA, but not regarding its efficacy for patients having OSA as well as T2DM. This study aims to objectively and subjectively evaluate oral appliance therapy using a MAD in patients having OSA as well as T2DM. Materials and Methods: Patients who visited the hospital clinic having OSA as well as T2DM were recruited. After giving informed consent, participants were divided into three equally sized groups of three grades of OSA (mild, moderate, severe) on the basis of a polysomnography report and were given intervention of MAD at 50% of maximum mandibular protrusion and 20% of maximum interincisal opening. Objective outcomes were HbA1c level and apnea hypopnea index score (AHI). Subjective outcomes were Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and the Berlin Questionnaire. All outcomes were assessed before and after 3 months of intervention. Results: A statistically significant difference was seen in all outcomes after intervention with MAD (p < 0.01) in all groups except HbA1c level in participants having severe OSA. Conclusion: MAD may be recommended in patients having OSA as well as T2DM. This study provides evidence to inform health care workers about possible use of MAD in OSA with T2DM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Partial auricular prosthesis fabrication presents a more complex challenge than complete ear fabrication, with added aspects of merging/camouflaging a larger prosthetic marginal area, pattern try‐in, and compromised retention. Better alternatives are excision of the remnant ear to make an implant‐retained complete ear prosthesis or surgical reconstruction of the missing ear portion. Both need additional surgery/ies and expenses, neither of which may be acceptable to the patient. This report describes a prosthesis fabrication approach for such patients. This approach does not require implants or adhesives for retention. Issues of marginal camouflage and pattern trial were also addressed satisfactorily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To determine whether a fixed partial denture (FPD) or an implant replacement of a single missing tooth leads to better masticatory efficiency and patient satisfaction. Materials and Methods One-hundred and twenty participants with missing mandibular right first molars were selected on the basis of predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After obtaining informed consent, 60 participants were randomized to the teeth-supported (FPD) group and 60 to the implant placement group (IMP). The study was divided into the following parts: (i) Completion of a Likert scale satisfaction questionnaire (postrehabilitation) by the participants. (ii) Evaluation of masticatory efficiency and performance 3 months after rehabilitation. Data were evaluated by applying t-test and z-test using statistical analysis ( α ˂ 0.05). Results Masticatory efficiency of participants in the IMP and FPD groups was 74.95 ± 0.90% and 74.41 ± 3.35%, respectively ( p = 0.607). Total satisfaction questionnaire scores for the two groups were also not significantly different; however, the mean scores of overall satisfaction and function categories in this questionnaire were significantly higher for the IMP group, while the mean score for the duration of treatment question was higher for the FPD group ( p < 0.05). Conclusion The results of this study suggested that although masticatory performance and efficiency were not statistically different for single teeth replaced with implants or FPDs, patients perceived higher satisfaction with implant restorations; they also preferred the shorter treatment times for rehabilitation in the FPD group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]