Use of bibloc and monobloc oral appliances in obstructive sleep apnoea: a multicentre, randomized, blinded, parallel-group equivalence trial

Summary Background The clinical benefit of bibloc over monobloc appliances in treating obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) has not been evaluated in randomized trials. We hypothesized that the two types of appliances are equally effective in treating OSA. Objective To compare the efficacy of monobloc versus bibloc appliances in a short-term perspective. Patients and methods In this multicentre, randomized, blinded, controlled, parallel-group equivalence trial, patients with OSA were randomly assigned to use either a bibloc or a monobloc appliance. One-night respiratory polygraphy without respiratory support was performed at baseline, and participants were re-examined with the appliance in place at short-term follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the apnoea–hypopnea index (AHI). An independent person prepared a randomization list and sealed envelopes. Evaluating dentist and the biomedical analysts who evaluated the polygraphy were blinded to the choice of therapy. Results Of 302 patients, 146 were randomly assigned to use the bibloc and 156 the monobloc device; 123 and 139 patients, respectively, were analysed as per protocol. The mean changes in AHI were −13.8 (95% confidence interval −16.1 to −11.5) in the bibloc group and −12.5 (−14.8 to −10.3) in the monobloc group. The difference of −1.3 (−4.5 to 1.9) was significant within the equivalence interval (P = 0.011; the greater of the two P values) and was confirmed by the intention-to-treat analysis (P = 0.001). The adverse events were of mild character and were experienced by similar percentages of patients in both groups (39 and 40 per cent for the bibloc and monobloc group, respectively). Limitations The study shows short-term results with a median time from commencing treatment to the evaluation visit of 56 days and long-term data on efficacy and harm are needed to be fully conclusive. Conclusion In a short-term perspective, both appliances were equivalent in terms of their positive effects for treating OSA and caused adverse events of similar magnitude. Trial registration Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT02148510).