Author: Michael Kelley

Farm Animal Exposure Reduces Childhood Asthma 52%

Children who are raised in households with dogs or farm animals during their first year of life may have a lower risk of asthma a few years later, a new study suggests. In the study, the researchers looked at early exposure to dogs and farm animals and the<a href=”http://www.livescience.com/36302-asthma-rates-highest-level-cdc.html”> rate of asthma</a> among about 377,000 preschool-age and 276,000 school-age children in Sweden. Among the school-age kids in the study, those who had been exposed to dogs during their first year of life were 13 percent less likely to have asthma at age 6, compared with the school-age kids who had not been <a href=”http://www.livescience.com/8633-kids-dogs-active.html”>exposed to dogs</a> in their first year of life, the researchers found. Based on the new findings, researchers can confidently “say that Swedish children with dogs in their homes are at lower risk of asthma at age 6, and that this risk reduction is seen also in children to parents with asthma,” said study author Tove Fall, an associate professor of Uppsala University in Sweden. The researchers also found that, the school-age kids who were exposed to farm animals during their first year of life were 52 percent less likely to have asthma at age 6 than those who had not been exposed to farm animals during their first year of life. Among the preschool-age children, those who were exposed to farm animals during their first year were 31 percent less likely to have asthma when they were between 1 and 5 years old, compared with the kids who were not exposed to farm animals during their first year of life, according to the study, published on November 2, 2015 in the <em>Journal JAMA Pediatrics.</em> In the study, the researchers looked at diagnoses of asthma obtained from the National Patient Register in Sweden. They also examined data on prescribed asthma drugs dispensed at pharmacies in Sweden. The researchers also looked at whether the kids’ parents were registered as dog owners during the child’s entire first year of life, and whether the parents reported that they worked with farm animals. The data in the study were analyzed from January 2007, through September 2012. The researchers said they don’t know for sure what exactly may explain the link between early exposure to animals and a reduced risk of asthma. “It might be due to a single factor, or more likely, a combination of several factors related to a dog ownership lifestyle or dog-owners’ attitudes, such as kids’ exposure to household dirt and pet dust, time spent outdoors or being physically active,” Fall told Live Science. “As a parent in a dog-and-baby-household, it is nearly impossible to keep everything clean, and maybe this is a good thing for your baby’s future health.” Currently, one of the main hypotheses that aim to explain the link between a lower risk of asthma and early exposure to pets is that “kids in animal environments breathe air that contains more bacteria and bacterial fragments, which actually could lower their risk of asthma,” she said. Previous research on having pets and the risk of asthma in kids has yielded mixed results. For example, the results of a <a href=”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11240945″>2001 review</a> of previous studies suggested that exposure to pets was linked to an increased risk of asthma in children. But a <a href=”http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jir/2012/176484/”>2012 review</a> suggested that exposure to pets, especially dogs, was tied to a decreased risk of asthma and allergies in childhood. “My take-home message from this study is that parents at this point do not need to worry about keeping their dog or getting a puppy when expecting a baby for fear of asthmatic disease,” Fall said. “I do want to be clear that this recommendation is valid only for families without a child already having allergies. If they already have a furred-animal-allergic child, we do not recommend them to get a furred pet.” The new findings are in line with the so-called hygiene hypothesis, said Dr. Purvi Parikh, an allergist and immunologist with Allergy &amp; Asthma Network, a nonprofit organization that promotes allergy research and education, who was not involved in the new study. According to this hypothesis, being exposed to bacteria early in life is crucial for shaping a healthy immune system, and may play a role in modifying a person’s risk of <a href=”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25102107″>developing asthma and allergies.</a> “With allergies and asthma, it is partially genetic, but studies like this do show us that your environment does play a key role in the development of your immune system, and the development of allergies and asthma,” Parikh told <a href=”http://www.livescience.com/52665-childrens-asthma-risk-dog-animals.html”>Live Science</a>. <strong>References:</strong> <a href=”http://www.mdspiro.com”>www.mdspiro.com</a> <a href=”http://www.livescience.com/52665-childrens-asthma-risk-dog-animals.html”>http://www.livescience.com/52665-childrens-asthma-risk-dog-animals.html</a> &nbsp;

American Sleep and Breathing Academy “Study Club” redefines successful dental sleep medicine weekend courses!

November 11th 2015, from the ASBA PEORIA, Arizona, November 11th 2015 – One of the fastest growing areas in dentistry, dental sleep medicine is also a source of annoyance and deflated expectations for a lot of Dentists who have invested in courses and equipment , only to leave with no clear plan of how to incorporate dental sleep into their practice. The American Sleep and Breathing Academy “ASBA” Study club seminars redefine what a successful dental sleep weekend course is.  The Study club is led by ASBA Diplomates “DASBA” who concentrate on helping attendees learn the skills to implement sleep apnea dentistry in their practice. One main difference is the ASBA Study club does not allow vendors or product specific presentations unless competitive or comparable products are also presented, which provides context and encourages free discourse as to clinical yield best practices and enhanced revenue models. Day 2 of the study club is a real treat; the Pro Player Health Alliance has a breakfast with retired NFL greats. This weekend Roy Green, Derek Kennard and Mark Walczak sat with attendees and spoke about sleep apnea and wellness. “The impact of sleep apnea on a person who needs to perform at their best cannot be underestimated” says Roy Green. These retired NFL players help raise awareness and encourage retired NFL players and the public to get tested and treated for obstructive sleep apnea. May of the ASBA dentists have worked with this group to provide screening and treatment for icons of the NFL world. Players like Eric Dickerson and Marcus Allen have all given their time to this important cause.   Each Diplomate presenter at the Study Club presents their personal strategic plan, and shares the key decision points that make or break a new practice. This helps attendees test their understanding of the standard of practice employed by the ASBA Diplomate through open discussion.   Each of the Diplomates have successful robust sleep practices in excess of $1.5M annually, no two are the same, each study club will have minimum of 3 DASBA presenters. There is a tremendous amount of personalized advice and specific step-by-step instructions to aid the Study Club Member in achieving success with their sleep business.     “Training Sleep Apnea Dentistry has become rife with folks overstating their abilities and experience. Selling substandard equipment at inflated prices to an unsuspecting group of clinicians who simply want to treat their patients.” David Gergen, ASBA   “This past weekend over half of the attendees had attended more than one vendor sponsored seminar in the last year. As a group none of the attendees had managed to achieve any traction with sleep apnea dentistry in their practice.” Alan Hickey, ASBA   ASBA Study Club: More than a series of Seminars, this Academy will help you build your practice using our proven methods. Seminars are by Dentists who have built sleep practices with annual revenue over $1.5 M. This study club format is unique, affordable, and designed to give you the tools to preform at the level of the mentors. Many have left the conference saying that it was the most vital, essential & powerful dental sleep learning event they’ve ever attended! The benefit of this style of education is that the group is limited to 12 offices. This gives us the opportunity to focus on specific questions and with one on one discussions that can be shaped for every region of the country. This program is suited for practices starting with sleep apnea treatment and practices that have yet to achieve their potential. We feature Doctors from a wide range of markets, from 100,000 to 6.5M population, who will share insight with you on they grew their dental sleep practice. Hear accounts from real ASBA members who have been in the same position you were a few years ago! Learn from their successes at the ASBA study club! To register, please click on the button below: https://asba.net/upcoming-2015-conferences/   Related Links https://asba.net/ https://asba.net/membership-3

Case Presentation: Catching central sleep apnea during titrations of an oral sleep appliance

By Mark  Collins, DDS  and James Collins Abstract Titration is often the most difficult component of dental sleep medicine and the methods used to verify titration vary between practitioners. However, the end results of titration should maximize the relief of subjective symptoms while striving to optimize objective outcomes. Epworth and Berlin Sleepiness Scales help practitioners assess and relieve subjective symptoms while pulse oximeters and home sleep testers (HST) help practitioners assess and optimize objective outcomes. Yet, most type III home sleep testers and pulse oximeters do not detect sleep patterns or central sleep apneas. This case, however,  used a type III home sleep tester that features Respiratory Inductive Plethysmography (RIP) belts, which allowed us to differentiate between obstructive and central sleep apneas. Introduction  and History This case regards a 52-year-old Caucasian man who was referred  to  our  office by  an American  Academy  of Sleep Medicine (MSM) board-certified sleep medicine physician . The patient is 5’11” and weighs 195 pounds. He has a 16 inch neck size and his Epworth Sleepiness Scale is 8. The patient’s chief complaints are snoring, daytime sleepiness, trouble falling asleep and that he stops breathing while sleeping (according to his partner). Due to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) restricting movements, the disturbing noise from CPAP devices, claustrophobia, and general discomfort while wearing CPAP devices, the patient was deemed CPAP intolerant. His polysomnogram (PSG) from a sleep lab, read by an AASM board-certified  physician,  showed  a reduced  sleep deficiency of 36 percent, a rapid eye movement (REM) latency of 320 minutes, and an obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with an apnea­ hypopnea index (AHI) of 37. Respiratory disturbances resulted in moderate to severe oxygen desaturation, which caused the Sa02 to be 77 percent at its lowest. No periodic limb movements during sleep or arrhythmias were recorded. A split­ night study was performed in order to test the patient on CPAP use, however, no central sleep apneas were found. The patient has a medical history of congestive heart failure, uses a pacemaker and owns a defibulator. He also has low blood pressure. The patient reports all other aspects of  his health  to be normal. The medications used by the patient at the time of treatment were: Corg 37.5 mg twice a day, Spironolactone 25 mg once a day, Amiodarone 100 mg once a day, Zestril 10 mg once a day, Digoxin 0.125 once a day, Metanx 75 mg twice a day, Simvastiatin 10 mg once a day, Pradaxa 75 mg twice a day, Furosemide 40 mg every other day, KlOR-con 10 mg every other day and Mag-64 twice a day. The patient has no known allergies  and  does  not  smoke, drink alcohol  or consume caffeine. Furthermore, the patient has no family history of sleep apnea, heart problems, or diabetes. Findings The initial exam revealed the patient’s blood pressure to be 132/78 mmHg and his pulse to be 56 bpm. The patient’s  body mass index (BMI) was 26 kg/ m2 and his adjusted neck circumference was 42 cm. All four of the patient’s wisdom teeth had been removed more than 20 years ago. Additionally, the patient has a class 1 occlusion with a 2 mm anterior overjet and a 2 mm anterior overbite. The patient’s periodontal health is good  and he has no oral pathologies or caries. However, he does suffer from mild pitting  on  his molar occlusals and abfractions on his maxillary and mandibular premolars. Furthermore,  the patient  also has  a mandibular  tori, a scalloped tongue with a medium level and a class 1 mallampati with  no  tonsils present. The patient has no airway problems, and an acoustic airway reflection rhinometry shows a clear airway. The patient does not suffer from temporomandibular joint (TMJ) or range of motion complications and no organ complications were found. The patient is alert and articulate, and appears in good health with a healthy skin color and temperature. Panoramic x-ray revealed no pathologies and the cephalogram revealed no abnormalities. Decision Tree A Herbst appliance manufactured by Gergen’s Orthodontic Lab was chosen for the patient, because he is predominantly a mouth breather and, as a Medicare recipient, he required  a Medicare-approved appliance. Additionally, a morning aligner was made with the Patterson Dental TAP® AM Aligner. The patient was instructed on the use and care of the appliances and was able to insert and remove the appliance himself. In a  follow-up phone  call made  24 hours later,  the patient reported to be following the instructions and was using the device with no complications. The patient experienced no teeth, gum, or jaw discomfort, and was able to sleep for eight hours while wearing the   appliance. Each week for the next four weeks the patient returned to our office and during each visit we perform a titration of four half turns forward until the patient said he was feeling better. The patient’s snoring had stopped, but he did not feel  refreshed. So, I decided  to run a home sleep test to see if  there were any objective improvements to his condition. We used an Embletta® Gold Type III home sleep testing (HST) device. This appliance was chosen for its RIP belts, which distinguish obstructive sleep apneas from central sleep apneas. The patient returned the next morning and reported a normal night’s sleep, but he still  felt tired. After considering the large amount of central sleep apneas in the test results, we advised the patient to attend a new PSG, but he refused to. So, we ran an additional HST to ensure the first test was not complicated by a first pass effect or faulty tester.The HST results showed an overall AHI of 24.2 with  100 apneas and 52 hypopneas. There were 4 obstructive apneas, 70 central apneas and 26 mixed apneas. Overall  the obstructive AHI was 0.6, the central AHI was  11.2, and  the  mixed AHI was  4.1. According  to  The Apnea-  Desaturation  Relation, the mean oxygen saturation was 93.4 percent and the lowest oxygen saturation was 79 percent. There were 73 episodes of snoring, which has a total duration of 23.8 minutes. These results were recorded using the automatic scoring in the RemLogic software. No physician diagnosis of the scores was requested. For the second HST, which  we performed the next night, we used a different Embletta  Gold  tester.  The test’s results showed  an  overall AHI  of32.4 with 134 apneas: 4 obstructive, 91 cern:fal, 39 mixed and 34 hypopneas. The obstructive AHI was 0.8, the central AHI was 17.5, and the mixed AHI was 7.5. According to The Apnea­ Desaturation Relation, the  mean oxygen saturation was 94.2 percent and the lowest oxygen saturation was 82 percent. This test was not scored or submitted to a physician. Patient’s Progress  and Outcome The oral appliance titration treatment was stopped until a sleep physician or cardiac physician was involved. The patient’s sleep physician was consulted and he advised that the patient be referred to his cardiac physician immediately for a full cardiac workup and a sleep evaluation with a PSG. Since the patient’s cardiac physician is located in Loma Linda Medical Center, which is eight hours away from his home by car, the patient was encouraged to be under the care of the medical center’s sleep physician and cardiology departments. According to the most recent updates, the patient is suffering from congestive heart failure and his prognosis is poor. He is under the care of a cardiologist and sleep physician for his central sleep apnea and congestive heart failure. Summary This case has demonstrated that the use of a Type III HST that lacks the ability to distinguish between central and obstructive sleep apneas or the use of pulse oximetry can cause oral appliance therapy (OAT) to fail. Furthermore, treating a patient without distinguishing between central and obstructive sleep apneas can be detrimental to a patient’s health. Conversely, the use of a Type III HST with RIP bands allows the practitioner to recognize possible cardiac complications, which would not be recognized by most other testing devices. Although the patient l’iad a history of congestive heart  failure, central sleep apneas were not suspected due to the patient’s prior PSG. However, the patient was found to have central sleep apneas, which led to the referral to the cardiologist and sleep physician. Therefore, this case shows the life-saving importance of using Type III HST’s with RIP-belts. Further research needs to be performed in the distinguishing between central verses obstructive apneas during  titration  and Type III home sleep testing equipment’s abilities to find these differences. Also, Type III and IV testing on patients with a  history of congestive heart failure accuracies in titration studies should  be  reviewed further References Chesson AL Jr, Berry RB, Pack Practice Parameters for the Use of Portable Monitoring Devices in the Investigation of Suspected Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults. SLEEP. 2003;26:907-13. American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Portable Monitoring in the Diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea. J Clin Sleep 2006;2:274. Fields BG, Kuna ST. Comparing Methods of RespiratoryEvent Detection  during the  Treatment  of  Obstructive  Sleep Apnea. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2012;1 :489-99. Hoffstein V Review of Oral Appliances for Treatment of Sleep-Disordered Breathing. Sleep and 2007;11:1-22. Littner Portable Monitors for Home Sleep Testing for the Diagnosis and Follow-up of  Obstructive Sleep Apnea: Past, Present, and Future. Sleep M edicine Clinics. 2011. Doi:10.1016 /j. jsmc.2011.05.013. Collop NA, Anderson WM, Boehlecke Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Unattended Portable Monitors in the Diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adult Patients. J Clin Sleep M ed. 2007;3(7):737-47 Yin M, Miyazaki S, Ishikawa K. Evaluation of Type 3 Portable Monitoring in Unattended Home Setting for Suspected Sleep Apnea: Factors that May Affect its Accuracy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Feb;134(2):204-9. ‘ Mark Collins , DDS, graduated from the University of Iowa 1997 and is a general dentist with a private practice in Fort Mohave, Ariz.  Director of the only AADSM  accredited dental facility  in Arizona,  Dr. Collins also currently serves on the Accreditation  Committee of the AADSM .  James Collins is currently  a student  at the University of Arizona  and is a freelance and technical writer. This article was previously published in American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine Dialogue ISSUE 3, 2013 pgs 24-26                                         Figure 2   No physician diagnosis of the scores was requested.   After considering the large amount of central sleep apneas in the test results, we advised the patient to attend a new PSG, but he refused to. So, we ran an additional HST to ensure the first test was not complicated by a first pass effect or faulty tester.   For the second HST, which  we performed the next night, we used a different Embletta  Gold  tester.  The test’s results showed  an  overall AHI  of 32.4 with 134 apneas: 4 obstructive, 91 cern:fal, 39 mixed and 34 hypopneas. The obstructive AHI was 0.8, the central AHI was 17.5, and the mixed AHI was 7.5. According to The Apnea­ Desaturation Relation, the  mean oxygen saturation was 94.2 percent and the lowest oxygen saturation was 82 percent. This test was not scored or submitted to a physician. mean oxygen satuootion was 93.4 percent and the lowest oxygen saturation was 79 percent. There were 73 episodes of snoring, which has a total duration of 23.8 minutes. These results were recorded using the automatic scoring in the RemLogic software

POSITIONAL APNEA IN A 73-YEAR OLD MALE WITH ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

This is the case of a 73-year old male who was diagnosed by the local heart institute with atrial fibrillation. The patient was under outpatient care of both a cardiologist and family doctor.Bed partner interview did not report a history of snoring nor any history of breathing difficulties during the night. However, the patient reported awakening nightly around 0300 to 0400 with the inability to return to sleep because of height- ened arousal. The patient underwent a procedure at the heart institute which induced normal cardiac sinus rhythm, but atrial fibrillation returned within two weeks. The patient is currently taking Coumadine (warfarin). Based on this history, and the known association between obstructive sleep apnea and atrial fibrillation,1 the patient agreed to a simple home sleep apnea screening test using the MediByte Jr. Home Sleep Screening The MediByte Jr. is an easy-to-use Type 3 home sleep apnea recorder which complies with new guidelines by using the same technology in the comfort and convenience of the home as is used in sleep laboratories worldwide. The MediByte Jr. records blood oxygenation and pulse rate using transmission SpO2, oro- nasal airflow via internal pressure transducer, snoring vibrations from airflow, thoracic respiratory effort using RIP technology, and importantly, body position. The raw data is fully disclosed, identical to that recorded in sleep labs, and there is no data processing using proprietary black-box algorithms. The device is capable of recording for one nine-hour night or two consecutive nine-hour nights. Cost per study is approximately seven dollars and published data have found high sensitivity, specificity and correlations of 0.92 between the MediByte and PSG.2 A registered polysomnographic technologist (RPSGT) spent approximately seven minutes instructing the patient in how to apply the MediByte Jr recorder and biosensors. All home sleep apnea data was scored by an RPSGT using scoring guidelines published by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.3 Total recording time for the baseline night was six hours and 45 minutes. Contrary to subjective reports, the patient had severe obstructive apneas and hypopneas while supine, but was within normal limits during nonsupine sleep. The supine respiratory disturbance index (RDI) was 45.5 and the nonsupine RDI was 1.5 (see Figure 1). The patient slept 49.2% of the night sleeping on his back. Although time between 90% to 100% SpO2 was 99.9% of the entire night, there were 112 SpO2 desaturations of ␣ 4%. The results of the study were explained to the patient and also provided to both the family doctor and cardiologist. Treatment options were discussed with the patient. The patient had no desire to use CPAP therapy and opted to initially attempt positional treatment. Positional Therapy Positional therapy involved sewing two street hockey balls (cost about three dollars) into the back of a shirt. Positive feedback about treatment was received from the patient during a follow-up phone call 72-hours post baseline recording. The patient reported he was now sleeping through the night awakening at 0600 rather than during the middle of night. A subsequent home sleep apnea recording with treatment was performed approxi- mately three weeks after the baseline test. It was originally hoped that the positional treatment would reduce the RDI to a mild or moderate level, at which point therapy could be combined with oral appliance treatment (the patient was adamantly opposed to CPAP therapy). However, the results of treatment were striking in their effectiveness and are shown in Figure 2. Total recording time was six hours and 19 minutes. The supine respiratory disturbance index (RDI) dropped to 0.0 (from a baseline of 45.5) with the patient spending 0% of the night sleeping on his back. Total nonsupine RDI was 4.0 which was within normal limits. Time between 90% to 100% SpO2 was 100% of the entire night, but more importantly the number of SpO2 desaturations of ␣ 4% plummeted to one (from a baseline of 112). The patient reported better sleep, increased energy, and overall satisfaction with treatment. Additional follow-up recordings will be performed to monitor continued treatment success. Successful Outcomes This case study illustrates the cost-effective approach to successful home sleep apnea screening. It also shows the vital importance of recording body position and how subjective reports may be qualified using objective, empirical data. Home diagnosis and monitoring of` sleep apnea is a valid tool which should be used with a suitable patient population to extend sleep medicine practice into the community. The successful outcomes associated with positional therapy are not surprising, and are consistent with a recent study which concluded “positional therapy is equivalent to CPAP at normalizing the AHI in patients with positional OSA, with similar effects on sleep quality and nocturnal oxygenation.” SlumberBump is a very simple device that is worn around the chest to help position the patient on their side while sleeping. Studies indicate that positional therapy is as effective as CPAP in mild sleep apnea patients. More info on slumberbump can be requested at ProPlayer Health. References 1. Somers VK, White DP, Amin R, Abraham WT, Costa F, Culebras A, Daniels S, Floras JS, Hunt CE, Olson LJ, Pickering TG, Russell R, Woo M, Young T. Sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease: an American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation scientific statement. Circulation. 2008; 118:1080 –1111. 2. Driver, HS, Bjerring KA, Toop F, Pereira E, Stewart SC, Munt P, Fitzpatrick MF. Evaluation of a Portable Monitor Compared with Polysomnography for the Diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Poster presentation at Sleep 2009: Seattle. 3. Iber, C, Ancoli-Israel, S, Chesson, A, Quan, SF. The AASM Manual for the Scoring of Sleep and Associated Events: Rules, Terminology, and Technical Specification, 1st ed, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, Westchester, Illinois 2007. 4. Permut, I, Diaz-Abad, M, Chatila, W, Crocetti, J, Gaughan, J, D’Alonzo, G, Krachman, S. Comparison of Positional Therapy to CPAP in Patients with Positional Obstructive Sleep Apnea. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine. 2010; 6: 238–243.

Multidisciplinary Is Not a Dirty Word

We’re dentists; We went to dental school. We were told that we would become “physicians of the oral cavity,” and then we. spent four years learning to become tooth and gum doctors. We graduated and unlike our friends in medical school, who were appropriately prepared and trained for their internships and residencies, we found that we were less than well prepared to become private practitioners. Many of us quickly joined the ranks of those private practitioners working, in our own offices within our own four walls. The two surface restoration that we struggled to complete in a full afternoon clinic session in dental school three months ago was now to be completed in a half hour time slot in our private office. Our knowledge of business principles and staff management was limited. Knowing we were young and inexperienced, we looked for help. We looked to join dental societies and participate in dental study clubs, only to find that most dental study clubs were disbanded. The dentist across the street was seen as competition as we checked the increased size of his yellow page ad with every new edition. Unlike the physicians in our town, we had no real need or built-in opportunity to communicate with each other on a regular basis. There was no hospital staff room in which to see each other and say “good morning.” There was just good old fashioned competition. Competition increased with the introduction of ethical advertising. A new term, busy-ness, was coined by the American Dental Association. This lack of communication didn’t seem to get better with time. In fact, in the mid 80s, with dental malpractice at an all time high, it was obvious that many of the dental malpractice suits were a result of either verbal or nonverbal communication to the patient from a dentist about the previous dentistry completed by that guy across the street. You know, the one with the big yellow page ad, which was now in three colors. Many general dentists attended continuing education classes to become more qualified in some familiar field of dentistry. Some concentrated their studies on restorative dentistry, others on periodontics or prosthetics. Some studied orthodontics and then became competitive with their local orthodontists. General practitioners learning orthodontics utilized functional appliances and became critical of those local “real” orthodontists who often proposed the use of bicuspid extractions. Others became proficient in endodontics. Some studied in a field then unknown to us in dental school: Cosmetic Dentistry. Others questioned if that terminology meant that those who were not advertising as Cosmetic Dentists were therefore Un-cosmetic Dentists. There were several reasons the general dentist wanted to be more proficient in the specialties of dentistry, and one of them certainly was economic. Why send all that potential revenue to the specialist? More training meant more therapy stayed within our four walls-less need to refer patients. With that decreased referral pattern, there was a decreased need to communicate with others, consequently less sharing of patient care responsibility. Some of us put the emphasis of our post graduate training on the treatment of temporomandibular joint dysfunction and chronic pain. We took a course that excited us, which led to another … and then another. This field was significantly different from any of the other fields of dental specialty. Concepts that were required were not building on those which we were taught in dental school. They were new concepts. Many of the concepts were indeed in conflict with the ingrained principles that were handed down from generation to generation. Re-examination of these concepts became necessary, especially since these very concepts that may have been incorrect were leading to less than adequate treatment for many of our patients. The conceived heresy of infringing on freeway space, of any joint posture other than centric relation, of creating anything ‘other than a centric splint for patient care, among many others, needed to be reevaluated. The oversimplified notion that less than ideal occlusal schemes with nociceptive premature contacts led to hyperactive muscle and headaches was the precursor to a greater understanding of the role of mandibular posture to cervical structure and the pathophysiology of chronic pain. Diagnostic and therapeutic improvements. for internal derangements, as well as myofacial pain dysfunction, continued to widen the scope of the types of disqrders we as dentists could help to treat. We no longer sat in lectures teaching preparations required for anterior veneers, but instead on the use of glucosamine and chrondroitin supplementation for our patients with degenerative joint disease. The study of the microbiology of periodontal disease was replaced with learning the pathophysiology of ligament insertion injuries and the referred pain pattern of stylomandibular insertion tendinosis. Acute periapical pain was replaced with the complex role of the sympathetic system in chronic pain patterns. Patients and their physicians began to appreciate the expanded role of dentistry for these patients with what was called TMD syndrome. Stepping out of the box and learning to understand the role of occlusion and mandibular posture on the craniomandibular system was exciting. We all hit the books and relearned the anatomy that we memorized for our dental school anatomy examinations. But now there was purpose. We moved our attention to sympathetically maintained pain. We studied the critical trigeminal nerve. The temporomandibular joint anatomy was physically and mentally redissected. Clearly if we were going to treat this joint, we needed to understand it as well as the orthopedic physicians understood the knee . We learned quickly that mandibular repositioning affected cervical lordosis and head posture as well as joint function. That structural alteration led to muscular changes throughout the upper quarter and beyond. Observations of many symptomatic changes led to further study, taking the dentist further and further out of the box. These observations included the fact that repositioning could decrease headache intensity and frequency. We noted that parafunctional control could actually decrease migraine symptoms, and that referred otalgia and cervicalgia could also be relieved with our therapy. This was an exciting time for dentistry. Unfortunately, our dental model has at times prevented craniomandibular therapy from teaching its true potential. We were the same dentists who learned to function within our own four walls. The same dentists who didn’t need to understand referral patterns, and the same dentists who didn’t need to communicate with the competitive dentist across the street or on the other side of town. We were the same ones who learned all phases of dentistry and were trained to, as much as possible, take sole responsibility for our patients’ dental health. Treatment decisions were our own. We didn’t need to communicate them with anyone. Our records were our own. As long as we could read them, they were satisfactory. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that the most successful dentists in the treatment of craniomandibular disorders are those who have learned to abandon this dental practice model of relative isolationism. The successful practices are those that have accepted the notion of convergence pain. They understand that while their treatment may in fact reduce the intensity and frequency of their patients’ headaches, it is essential that their patients’ physicians diagnose and rule out any systemic factor as a contributing source of their symptoms. They know that having some basic knowledge in fields that seem to be foreign to their basic practice and dental license is essential, not so that they necessarily have to be the ones to treat their patients, but so that they have enough information to make intelligent referrals. A successful practice is one in which intelligent diagnostic decision making begins with the first step of deciding . whether or not the dentist should be the primary caretaker in the patient’s treatment, or should he make a referral to a more appropriate primary caretaker and possibly then take a supportive role in his patient’s care. All too often the most influential factor determining patient treatment is the first office they contact for their care, as opposed to what is their malady and whose treatment would be most effective in its resolve. The new model calls for a change. We must properly diagnose. We must continue to learn and become more proficient at treating that which we should, and more knowledgeable to refer that which we should not. The new model calls for diagnostically driven therapy with the patient as part of the decision making process and the treatment team. It calls for active and effective communication between the dentist and other dentists and physicians, chiropractors, physical therapists, nutritionists, psychologists, acupuncturists, and massage therapists. It calls for real multidisciplinary therapy as opposed to the lip service the concept often receives. Multidisciplinary therapy doesn’t mean that one discipline treats until the maximum benefit is derived, and then a refelTal is made to another discipline. It doesn’t mean that if our profession alone can’t be totally effective in the therapy of the patient, then we have failed. It means multidisciplined diagnosis and triage and simultaneous therapy when indicated. Our present health care delivery system makes this model a challenge. Our history as dentists with a different model further complicates the challenge. I suggest we need to meet the challenge. Our patients and our profession will benefit greatly

Continuing Education from the Back of the Room

As the clinical director of a facility Accredited by the American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine, I attended a course provided by a local university for primary care physicians, entitled: Current Management of Sleep Disorders: A Comprehensive Update There was not much on the flyer regarding oral appliances, but since an oral surgeon that was also a Diplomate of the American Board of Dental Sleep Medicine was speaking on the subject of surgical solutions, I was hopeful that there would be some information on oral appliance’s provided for the physicians, at least in passing. If I were a physician attending that conference, this is what I would have heard about oral appliances… “I don’t know much about oral appliances and I will let the oral surgeon speaking today tell us more about them.” “As far as oral appliances go, I see Dr. John Viviano is in the audience, he has an office that is exclusively dedicated to oral appliance therapy. I am sure that he will concur that oral appliances move teeth, often after only two weeks of wear.” But I am not a physician. I am a dentist, with knowledge in this area. So, when the question period came around at the end of the conference, I put up my hand and said the following… “I would like to thank all the speakers for their excellent presentations. However, I am surprised at the lack of information provided today regarding the role oral appliances play for these patients. In fact, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine / American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine (AASM/AADSM) joint guidelines  published this summer state that: Oral Appliances are first line therapy for Snoring CPAP is first line therapy for Mild to Severe Sleep Apnea. However, if a patient prefers an oral appliance to CPAP it is appropriate for a physician to prescribe an oral appliance regardless of apnea severity (These are a “STANDARD” not just a “GUIDELINE”) Recent research suggests that when one considers both “therapeutic effectiveness” and “patient adherence” to therapy, oral appliances have an “Efficacy” similar to CPAP; they both hover around 50%. My practice is a referral practice, and almost all of my patients are CPAP intolerant individuals. Often these patients have dropped out of treatment for 1, 2, 3, 4 and sometimes even 5 years, before finally hearing about the oral appliance alternative and eventually finding their way to my office. The primary care physicians in this room play an instrumental role in the management of patients demonstrating an intolerance to CPAP, and today’s venue is an ideal place for them to learn about oral appliances…” The room was quiet and everyone was listening, and as heads turned to see who was providing this information, I went on to explain the required protocols for a physician to work collaboratively with a dentist in the care of these patients as per the current guidelines. This incident begs the following question, why is it, that in the year 2015, physicians can attend a university sponsored continuing education course entitled, “Current Management of Sleep Disorders: A comprehensive Update”, and would leave knowing nothing meaningful about the role oral appliances play in this area, if it were not for a sole dentist sitting at the back of the room. I say it is time dentists are invited to the front of the room!

Sleep Disorders Dentistry: A New Age for Dentistry

Dentistry experienced a meaningful paradigm shift regarding patient management, circa the mid 1970’s. This shift took approximately a decade, and by the mid 1980’s, it was mostly complete. I am talking about the introduction of “Soft Tissue Management” (STM) programs, which transformed dental practices from being “Prophy Mills” that offered a quick buff and shine to the typical dental patient’s dentition, to STM offices, that screened, documented, referred and managed the periodontal status of the patient’s dentition. The net result has been a remarkable reduction in both periodontal disease and tooth loss, and an equally remarkable increase in overall Oral Health. As a 1983 University of Toronto graduate, I am proud to have participated in that era. Of course dentists that did not make that shift, became liable and were left susceptible to disciplinary action and litigation actions claiming negligence. It is now 2015, and a paradigm shift of even greater significance has begun in dentistry, the introduction of DzSleep Disorders Dentistrydz (SDD) programs for the typical dental office. The current DzAirway Healthdz status of a typical dental patient is comparable to the DzPeriodontal Healthdz status of the typical dental patient during the 1970’s. Studies have shown that 57% of Americans snore, 20% have mild to moderate obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and 7% have severe OSA. It is estimated that over 80% of these patients remain undiagnosed. These statistics are of epidemic proportions, and due to the regular follow up and continuing care programs dentistry currently has in place to manage the periodontal status of dental patients, the dentist is ideally positioned to play a major role in the management of a patient’s “Airway Health”. Over the last 30 years, Oral Appliances that manage Snoring and OSA have become well established in the medical literature. This year, the American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine (AADSM) and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) jointly published Guidelines that include the use of Dental Oral Appliances as first line therapy for Snoring, and also for Mild, Moderate and Severe OSA “when or if” the patient prefers them to CPAP. Although this is an exciting time to be a dentist, for many, the current paradigm shift will be even more difficult then that experienced in 1975, when the typical dentist was told that their “Prophy Mill” practice no longer met current standards; leaving them open to disciplinary action and litigation if they did not implement an appropriate STM program. Unfortunately, simply taking a weekend course does not adequately prepare a dentist and their team to manage OSA, and all of the associated responsibilities that go with managing “Airway Health”. The dentist needs to learn how to work harmoniously with physicians to screen, triage and treat these patients, following which comes a never ending obligation to monitor the patient and report to the prescribing physician at each follow up visit; this requires specific knowledge and training. Today’s dentist must become well versed with the screening, referral process and management of “Airway Health”. The simple reason being that dentists are recognized as front line practitioners, responsible to evaluate and examine the oral cavity of patients. As Dentists become even more involved with the management of OSA, there will likely be an escalation in lawsuits for dentists that fail to diagnose their patients. Failure to recognize an airway problem can lead to litigation if it is alleged that the dentist should have recognized the condition and either failed to make the appropriate referral to a physician and or to appropriately manage the patient’s “Airway Health”. Failure to treat OSA predisposes the patient to a host of medical comorbidities including an increased risk of cardiovascular incidents, and workplace and automobile accidents due to daytime somnolence. Recently, a U.S. physician was successfully sued for not diagnosing OSA prior to surgery, which resulted in post surgical complications. Interestingly, I have noticed an increase in activity by Lawyers trained in dental issues on the SleepDisordersDentistry LinkedIn Discussion group that I manage. Lawyers are watching and learning, and their motives are transparent. In the not so distant future, dentists that fail to screen their patients for OSA will likely be considered liable; the assertion being that the dentist was negligent, based upon community standard of care, to identify signs and symptoms of OSA and failing to make the appropriate referral to a physician. The management of “Airway Health” also involves a second paradigm shift; the notion that a procedure performed by a dentist has a “Side Effect” associated with it. The typical dentist is trained to enter the oral cavity, perform their procedure, while ensuring no harm to the surrounding dentition and oral structures and exit with minimal psychological or physical trauma to the patient. However, Oral Appliance Therapy is not typical dentistry, it is part of the medical model, where side effects are an acceptable outcome provided the Risk/Benefit ratio is transparent, understood, acceptable and consented to by the patient. These appliances lead to occlusal changes that in the past have prompted the need for bite adjustments, comprehensive restorative work and even orthodontics in an attempt to stabilize the dentition. However, what we have seen is that patient’s experiencing these bite changes fair very well and that all the “bad” things we once thought would happen if the dentition was not maintained in a centric occlusion relation actually do not happen. With the guidance of Dr. Alan Lowe, those of us involved in this field for many years have already gone through this paradigm shift. However, for those new to, or unfamiliar with this field, the notion that side effects associated with Oral Appliance Therapy are unacceptable has the potential to lead to numerous problems; unnecessary orthodontics and comprehensive restorative dentistry being suggested or performed only because a dentist or orthodontist has made a case that the dentition will suffer if it is not done, and even worse, termination of Oral Appliance wear, potentially leaving the patient’s DzAirway Healthdz compromised. As Dr. Lowe shared with us many years ago, “no one has ever died of a malocclusion”; airway health is the priority. Another very important concern is the appropriate use of the devices that industry sells to dentists. As this field grows, dentists will be attending more and more industry sponsored courses, the potential for misrepresentation or inadequate training in the appropriate use of these devices exists. For example, in my province of Ontario Canada, the absence of RCDSO guidelines regarding Home Sleep Screening equipment can be problematic if the dentist is not adequately trained ensuring appropriate and ethical use of these devices. Currently, education in dental, hygiene and auxiliary schools, is inadequate to prepare new graduates for this environment. Of course, the many dentists, hygienists and auxiliaries already in practice are also ill prepared for these paradigm shifts. In the U.S., litigation lawyers are paying very close attention to this issue, it is only a matter of time before one of the standard questions asked when someone is in an automobile accident is, “Did your dentist screen you for sleep apnea at your last dental visit?” It is time that the typical dentist has a SDD program in their dental practice, utilizing the same auxiliaries and systems they currently have in place for their STM program. Just think of how proud we can be 20 years from now when we take ownership (at least in part) of the remarkable reduction in deaths and fatal accidents being caused by the current levels of untreated OSA. John Viviano DDS D ABDSM SleepDisordersDentistry.com SleepDisordersDentistry LinkedIn Group

Consensus on Dealing with Oral Appliance Side Effects

(Steve Carstensen, Tim Mickiewicz, Barry Glassman, Gina Pepitone-Mattiello, Les Priemer, Mark Collins, Shouresh Charkhandeh, Erin Elliott, Kent Smith, Ken Luco,  John Viviano, Steve Lamberg, David Nueber, Tony Soileau)   The newly formed LinkedIn Discussion Group, “SleepDisordersDentistry” has just completed an open discussion on “Dealing with Oral Appliance Side Effects: Sharing our Clinical and Verbal Protocols…”. Here is a consensus for all to ponder. What was asked,  “Tooth Movement, Bite Changes, Sore Teeth, Jaw Anteriorization, TMJ Discomfort, etc: Causes, Prevention and Management. Let’s share our Clinical and Verbal Protocols…”   What was said, Disclosure and Consent: A great deal of discussion revolved around proper disclosure and consent. An example of the consent form Ken Berley (Dentist and Lawyer) prepared for Steve Carstensen was posted on the site for all to review, revise and use if desired. Thanks Steve. The Link to this Consent form is:   CONSENT FORM LINK   Steve also pointed out the importance of having a well-trained team in this area. Of course, we all know that patients ask our team questions while they are waiting to see us, so this makes  perfect  sense.  He  suggests, “preparing  yourself  and  your  team  for  the conversations and questions that might happen for each of the listed side effects – the best way to do this is to role-play within your team”. One of Steve’s favorite sayings is,“once a diagnosis has been made of OSA, “Nothing’s Free” – there are consequences for no treatment and for each of the therapy choices. What it boils down to is which set of side effects seems the most tolerable.” Putting things in this perspective from the initial consultation helps the patient accept the notion that there will be side effects from the get go. The importance of complete and thorough disclosure regarding the potential for bite changes which include shifting of teeth and jaw anteriorization was discussed. There was some very heated discussion about on-going disclosure and the notion that sensitizing  the  patient  to  these  side  effects  posed the  possibility  of  heightening  their awareness and concern for these changes to the point that they drop out of therapy. The importance of stressing that these bite changes are insignificant when compared to the ramifications  of  remaining untreated  was  discussed at  length  and  everyone  was  in agreement  that  up-front  disclosure  and  on-going  disclosure  is  necessary,  however,  it should be done in such a manner as to not alarm or overly concern the patient such that they could become motivated to abandon oral appliance therapy and remain untreated. It was suggested that patients having difficulty re-establishing their bite in the morning may benefit from an anti-inflammatory taken at bedtime. However, the point that NSAIDs impact  on  body  temperature  regulation  and melatonin synthesis  through  inhibition  of prostaglandins was made, suggestive that this is probably not a good practice for long term use.  Also, if the patient is wearing a two-piece appliance such as a Dorsal, they could take off the lower component prior to getting out of bed and continue wearing the maxillary component for about 20 minutes as a deprogrammer, or they could remove the entire appliance and go right to an actual deprogrammer for 20 minutes before starting their day. Finally, once a posterior open bite is established, the notion that lateral tongue thrusters have the potential to exacerbate their problem was discussed. When a change in occlusion happens, we are obligated to inform the patient and discuss their options, which may range from doing nothing (which works most of the time) all the way up to restorative or orthodontic solutions. What is needed is education for all dentists and orthodontists so that patients can be properly advised and not misled when these bite changes occur. It is important to explain to the patient from the beginning that there can be bite changes that usually don’t affect their ability to function or the way they look, that we will do all we can to minimize these changes and that we will continuously monitor them. When  they do  occur,  the  patient  should  be  informed  (who  is  often  surprised  and  or unconcerned) and also advised that their dentist may become concerned. They are then advised that this issue is being monitored and after they listen to their dentists concerns, they can then give their dentist a hug and to quote Barry Glassman, tell them that, “it’ll be OK”. How profoundly this therapy impacts on our patients lives was discussed along with how patients  prioritize  quality  of  life  over how  their teeth  occlude.  Accurate  and  thorough documentation  of  the  patient’s  initial  Chief  Complaints  also  helps  keep  things  in perspective  when  bite  changes  become  apparent.  It  is  the  resolution  of  these  Chief Complaints  that  the  patients  will  be  balancing  with the  side  effects  we  have  been discussing. The general consensus was that most patients do not prioritize their occlusion over resolution of their Chief Complaints. Some of the verbal phrases used to discuss these issues with patients include:   “Your  bite  will  feel  different  in  the  morning  but  we  will  give  you exercises and some tools to help recapture that bite. Occasionally there is a more permanent bite change but when that happens half the time it is a good thing because the jaw was too far back anyways. Of those that it happens to most don’t even notice and no one has ever missed a meal.”              Erin Elliot    “Mr.  Apnelot,  all  of  the  side  effects  we  have  discussed  are  just temporary. We can deal with them when and if they arise. The ONLY side effect that may be permanent is a change in the way your teeth fit together.  We  don’t  know  why  this  happens  sometimes  and  we  don’t know who it will happen to, but it could happen to you. Now, we will do everything we can to check this when we see you – this is one reason we took all of those photos – but YOU are the one who wakes up every day with your bite the way it is. We will give you exercises to use every morning to  try and help, but you  might still get this change. I can’t check your bite every day, but YOU can.”      If your bite is changing, and you decide that change is not worth the benefit you are receiving – healthier sleep and a happier bed partner, for example – then you will need to let us know, or stop wearing it. If you wait too long, your bite might not ever go back to where it is right now.  Do  you  understand  this?  Is there anything  I  have  said  that  is unclear in any way?” Kent Smith   (Steve Carstensen, Tim Mickiewicz, Barry Glassman, Gina Pepitone-Mattiello, Les Priemer, Mark Collins, Shouresh Charkhandeh, Erin Elliott, Kent Smith, John Viviano)   Prevention and Management: Gina shared with us a preventive technique she learnt from Dennis Bailey. While placing the  tip  of their  tongue  to  the  palate  and  rolling  back,  the  patient  clenches  on  the  re-positioner, places their index fingers in their mouth towards the back and massages the masseter and medial pterygoids. Many patients say this actually relaxes their sore muscles and make this part of their daily routine.  Kent tells patients to chew gum in the shower as the hot water massages their muscles and joints. If the bite is not back to normal after the shower, the patient is to wait until they are dressed to try other exercises. If one tries too hard, too quickly, there could be more discomfort. Tim shared with us the use of Rocabado 6X6 exercises, which are exercises created by Dr. Rocabado, to be performed by the patient at  home.  They  consist  of  six  different  exercises  and  six  repetitions  of  each  exercise, performed six times per day until symptoms subside. These exercises emphasize correct postural position and help to combat the soft tissue memory of your old posture. (Gina Pepitone-Matiello, Kent Smith, Tim Mickiewicz)   General Aches and Pains:   Sleep Apnea appliances are passive, unless the appliance does not fit properly, sore teeth are a result of para-function. Protrusion bruxers develop sensitive lower anterior teeth. lateral bruxers develop pain in the cuspids or first bicuspids and vertical bruxers develop pain in the molars. Sore TMJ should never happen with anterior repositioning as we are decompressing the TMJ.  However, the TMJ will get sore if the mandible is locked in place and the muscles are fighting the position, or, if the bite registration is shifted a bit to the left or right, and the resulting appliance is torqued to that side causing pain on the contralateral side. Another source of contralateral TMJ discomfort is occlusal balance. If the appliance is biting more heavily on one side, usually the contralateral TMJ will hurt. This balance issue becomes moot when an anterior discluding ramp is used since there is no posterior contact. (Ken Luco, Barry Glassman, John Viviano)   Jaw Anteriorization:   A number of theories were discussed to explain morning bite changes. Steve Lamberg: “Jaw Anteriorization” is caused by a combination of overnight shortening of the Lateral Pterygoid muscles and a build up of retro-discal synovial fluid. David Nueber: Patients presenting at initial consultation with “Clicking, Popping, Deviation and Deflection” are susceptible to experiencing difficulties in re-establishing their normal bite in the morning. Kois refers to this “Deprogramed Bite” as Adaptive Centric Relation. David Nueber also shared that he works with Dentists that prevent AM bite issues by ensuring a healthy jaw joint position, “Gelb 4/7” as part of their appliance protocol. Kois: The role “functional occlusion” plays in the AM bite was discussed. When a patient has a constricted chewing pattern, an Oral Appliance will aide in deprogramming the bite through the night resultingin anterior edge-to-edge biting and posterior open bite in the AM.  Kois states that this category of functional occlusion is more likely to experience changes in occlusion. Ken Luco: If the patient has a click before OSA treatment, the condyles may reposition onto the disk when wearing the appliance and stabilize in that position, leading to a posterior open bite.  These are Class I’s with a click (posterior displaced condyles in Centric Occlusion. As soon as the condyle reseats, they become a Class III. For patients presenting with a TMJ click, timing of the click is important. Late clicks are very unstable as the ligaments are very stretched. These patients rarely develop posterior open bites as they easily slip off the disks in the morning back into their habitual bite.   However, Barry Glassman pointed out that the literature indicates most deviation and deflections are the result of non-pathological asymmetries, or non-pathological adaptation. His  routine  clinical  baseline  Joint  Vibration  Analysis  also  does  not  support  this  “Disk Displacement”  theory  as  they would  pick  up  disk  displacements  when  not obvious  by report or by palpation. Barry also pointed out that there is limited evidence to suggest that “condylar  position”  in  any  specific  moment  in  time (for  example  in  MIP  which  is  a nonfunctional dental state to begin with) is related to “health.” The disk, which is fibro-cartilage and thus non-neural and non-vascular doesn’t really need to “heal.” Steve  Carstensen  pointed  out  that “every  human  has  adapted  to  the  particular circumstances of the neuromuscular, skeletal, tooth configuration details that make up the stomatognathic system. Some have adapted with quiet joints, others, not so much. We are asking for more adaptation with our MAD therapy. So we don’t need to focus on how we are causing deviations from some ‘normal’, which may or may not be present. Only from their ‘normal’, which is an unknowable variable. That’s why we have such individual outcomes!” he goes on to suggest that we should help people understand how little we can predict what changes may take place, but assure them that we are “in it for them  and  we  can  follow  along  with  their  course  of  treatment  and  provide  help  as needed”. The notion of comparing OAT to medications they may have tried in the past that did not provide the desired benefit was discussed, helping the patient understand that outcomes cannot be assured. The fact remains that the theories mentioned above are lacking in evidence and as such are simply theories. In fact, condyles are being advanced to eminence world wide without any untoward effects, which contradicts many of the theories espoused to date. Steve Lamberg discussed the notion that it is not really about occlusion, but rather it’s about the pathway towards occlusion and tooth interference in that regard. However, he also goes on to say that the scientific literature is very conflicted and incomplete in this area. Finally, Barry posed  a  very  interesting  question, “is  the  tethering  of  the  disk  repeatable  with  all mandibular movements?” This question of course leads to a second question, “Why is everyone so obsessed with an activity that is so varied and unpredictable?” (Steve Lamberg, David Nueber, Steve Carstensen, Barry Glassman, Ken Luco, John Viviano) Appliance Fit: The loss of proper fit when no tooth or appliance changes have taken place was discussed; for no apparent reason, the appliance simply no longer fits properly (not associated with any  particular  appliance).    The  theory  is  that  it  is  muscle  changes  that  lead  to  this infrequent issue.  This clinician has a physiotherapist on his team that works the muscles of mastication, which seems to always correct the appliance fit. (Tony Soileau, Steve Carstensen) DISCUSSION: Shouresh Charkhandeh shared some great insights that are represented in the following discussion. Side-effects should be considered a “normal” part of any treatment, and should not stop patients from receiving the treatment of their choice, as long as there is full disclosure, regular updating and the benefits outweigh the risks. The patient should decide whether or not to address the side-effects, and continue vs. discontinue treatment. Full disclosure on any side-effects should take place, whether reported by the patient or observed during the exam. Both short-term and long-term consequences should also be discussed along with the possible solutions and alternative therapy options should they decide to discontinue oral appliance therapy. There  is  very  little  science  or  understanding  as  to why  these  side  effects  occur, consequently, it makes more sense to manage them rather than treat them, since there is no guarantee that they will not simply occur again once they are treated. Management typically involves morning jaw exercises, AM bite aligners / re-positioners, chew tabs, and day-time orthotics. We  need  to  obtain  a  better  understanding  the  effect of  appliance  design,  retention mechanism, appliance material, level of protrusion and titration protocols on side-effects. Research is needed in these areas so that better clinical decisions can be made, potentially minimizing or eliminating these side effects. Barry Glassman summarized the bite changes issue for us as follows: Occlusal changes can occur Occlusal changes can be put into two categories: odontogenic and non-odontogenic. Odontogenic changes include open contacts and tooth flaring, and are caused by force vectors on the teeth. Since the appliances themselves are passive, the force seems most likely to be related to para-function Non-odontogenic changes include jaw Anteriorization and theories regarding their cause include muscle memory alterations; altered muscle lengths; altered mandibular trajectories associated with or not associated with posterior cranial rotations. Most of these changes do not affect either function or aesthetics Therefore, the concern is overstated and often, the risk benefit quotient is not accurately assessed While several exercise protocols have been discussed, there is the difficulty of anecdotal reporting of success when we know that many patients do not do the exercises and have no changes. Aggressive attempts to return patients to their “habitual” bite may cause increased joint pain. Asking patients to “check their bite” in the morning has to be considered dangerous. Training the patient to be “conscious” of their “occlusion” may cause difficulties for some patients, contributing to a condition of occlusal dysesthesia. The patient may then make a decision to stop therapy based on their inability to “get their bite back” and thus make an inappropriate risk benefit decision. We need to be aware that there will be those in our profession that will give our patients bad information about the importance of their bite; and we need to prepare our patients for that situation. ”this presents a clinical dilemma when the patient is unconcerned about the occlusal change and refuses to abandon the appliance citing that the perceived benefits of treatment outweigh the dentist’s concern with the altered occlusion.”  Ferguson, K. A., R. Cartwright, et al. (2006). “Oral appliances for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea: a review.” Sleep 29(2): 244-262. Finally, the most thought provoking quote for this discussion goes to Barry Glassman, “All of us have left the trunk of evidence-based medicine and stepped out on the branch. How far we step out on the branch is a personal decision that affects not only our stability, but also our patient’s welfare. Personally, I have made the choice to step out as far as I can, but keep a hand on the trunk. I see many sticking to the trunk and limiting their opportunity to help patients. I also have binoculars and see some so far on the limb they tend to fall (and often bring patients with them.)” As clinicians, we all get to decide how far we want to venture from the Trunk full of evidence-based medicine as we manage our patients. That’s the cross we bare as clinicians. Once again, as with other topics we have discussed, it is very apparent how much we need to learn, and how little we can predict or ensure what is going to, or not going to happen. As Barry keeps pointing out, working in this field is a very different paradigm than what we were taught in dental school regarding the rules of engagement. I think clinicians reading this can take a sigh of relief regarding the issues they witness in their patients, knowing that it is the norm, not the exception. Document, advise, work to the highest scientifically based standards and align yourself with what other top clinicians that are of “like-mind” are doing. These are uncharted waters, and we are all learning on the go. I think this is a perfect  example  of  the  value  of  this  type  of  open  discussion;  I  thank  all  those  that participated and look forward to future discussions on SleepDisordersDentistry LinkedIn Group.   John Viviano DDS D ABDSM SleepDisordersDentistry.com SleepDisordersDentistry LinkedIn Group