The Comparison Of Two Kinds Of Oral Appliances Compliance In Patients With OSAHS

Objective Using the polysomnography?PSG?,Epworth sleepiness scale?ESS?, clinical compliance scale?CCE?, the Morisky measurement table?MG?and self-made questionnaire, to evaluate patient compliance of the self adjustable oral appliance and the modified Activator appliance.Methods The study included 60 patients with mild and moderate OSAHS, who were randomly divided into experimental group and control group. The experimental group were treated with the self-adjustable oral appliance while patients of control group were treated with the modified activator appliance. Objective evaluation criteria for polysomnography?PSG?,clinical compliance scale, subjective evaluation criteria for the Epworth sleepiness scale and Morisky measurement table?MG? self-made scale. A week before treatment patients were asked to do the polysomnography and fill out the Epworth sleepiness scale, After 3 months treatment, the Epworth sleepiness scale, clinical compliance scale and Morisky scale?MG? were completed and the polysomnography has been done. Among them, ESS scale and Morisky measurement table self-made scale was completed by patients, The clinical compliance questionnaire was completed by the physician. According to the data for statistical analysis, there were statistically significant differences when P<0.05.Results The experimental group AHI after treatment decreased?5.32±3.97?; LSaO₂ was increased?4.51±2.20?, the difference was statistically significant?P<0.05?. The control group AHI after treatment decreased?6.48 ± 3.81?; LSaO₂ was increased?6.09 ± 3.06?, the difference was statistically significant?P<0.05?.The ESS score of the experimental group was lower than before treatment?6.27±3.03?, with statistical difference?P<0.05?. The control group OSAHS patients ESS score than before treatment decreased?5.03 ± 2.27?, with statistical difference?P<0.05?. There was no statistical difference in the ESS score between the experimental group and the control group before and after treatment?P>0.05?. Table 3 results showed that: the experimental group oral hygiene compliance of patients accounted for 76.67%, the control group oral hygiene compliance of patients accounted for 73.33%. The experimental group of referral patients with good compliance, accounting for 83.3 %.The control group of referral patients with good compliance, accounting for 66.67%.The experimental group appliance maintenance good compliance patients accounted for 70%. The control group appliance maintenance good compliance patients accounted for 86.67%. The experimental group appliance wear good compliance patients accounted for 80%. The control group appliance maintenance good compliance patients accounted for 50%. There was no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group?P>0.05?. Table 4 the results showed that: the experimental group with good compliance patients accounted for 73.33%, patients with good compliance of the control group accounted for 53.33%. There was no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group?P>0.05?.Conclusion The compliance of the self adjustable oral appliance and improved Activator appliance are good. The Self adjustable oral appliance and modified activator oral appliance equally effective, is the effective method to treat mild or moderate OSAHS.