Share Page:

Volume 19 , Issue 6
November/December 2006

Pages 549–556

Reduction of Sleep Bruxism Using a Mandibular Advancement Device: An Experimental Controlled Study

Marie-Lou Landry, DMD, MSc, FRCD(C) / Pierre H. Rompré, MS / Christiane Manzini / Francine Guitard / Pierre de Grandmont, DMD, MS / Gilles J. Lavigne, DMD, MSc, PhD

PMID: 17165292

Purpose: The objective of this experimental study was to compare the effect on sleep bruxism and tooth-grinding activity of a double-arch temporary custom-fit mandibular advancement device (MAD) and a single maxillary occlusal splint (MOS). Materials and Methods: Thirteen intense and frequent bruxors participated in this short-term randomized crossover controlled study. All polygraphic recordings and analyses were made in a sleep laboratory. The MOS was used as the active control condition and the MAD was used as the experimental treatment condition. Designed to temporarily manage snoring and sleep apnea, the MAD was used in 3 different configurations: (1) without the retention pin between the arches (full freedom of movement), (2) with the retention pin in a slightly advanced position (< 40%), and (3) with the retention pin in a more advanced position (> 75%) of the lower arch. Sleep variables, bruxism-related motor activity, and subjective reports (pain, comfort, oral salivation, and quality of sleep) were analyzed with analysis of variance and the Friedman test. Results: A significant reduction in the number of sleep bruxism episodes per hour (decrease of 42%, P < .001) was observed with the MOS. Compared to the MOS, active MADs (with advancement) also revealed a significant reduction in sleep bruxism motor activity. However, 8 of 13 patients reported pain (localized on mandibular gums and/or anterior teeth) with active MADs. Conclusions: Short-term use of a temporary custom-fit MAD is associated with a remarkable reduction in sleep bruxism motor activity. To a smaller extent, the MOS also reduces sleep bruxism. However, the exact mechanism supporting this reduction remains to be explained. Hypotheses are oriented toward the following: dimension and configuration of the appliance, presence of pain, reduced freedom of movement, or change in the upper airway patency. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:549–556.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us