Skip to main content
. 2021 Aug 1;17(8):1607–1618. doi: 10.5664/jcsm.9260

Table 3.

Comparison of BP response and self-reported adherence to TSD and MAD treatments after the 2-month treatment.

Efficacy of OA TSD Users (n = 27) MAD Users (n = 26) ΔTSD vs ΔMAD P c (95% CI)
Baseline After ΔTSD P a (95% CI) Baseline After ΔMAD P b (95% CI)
Systolic BP (mm Hg) 125.6 ± 15.6 130.4 ± 15.7 5.5 ± 7.6 < .01*,d (–8.1 to –2.2) 132.0 ± 18.0 128 ± 20 –3.4 ± 15.0 .39d (–3.5 to 8.5) .01*,d (2.2–15.6)
Diastolic BP (mm Hg) 80.1 ± 9.0 80.4 ± 9.2 0.5 ± 7.2 .68d (–3.8 to 2.7) 84.0 ± 11.0 82.0 ± 13.0 –2.5 ± 9.7 .16d (–1.5 to 6.5) .14d (–1.4 to 8.0)
Adherence (nights/wk) 5.4 ± 2.2 6.4 ± 1.3 .03*,d (–2.0 to –2.5)
Adherence (h/night) 5.7 ± 2.0 6.8 ± 1.0 .06d (–1.0 to 7.0)
Length of OA usage (d) 106.0 ± 49.9 88.0 ± 54.0 .07d (–1.0 to 41.0)

All measurements were described as mean ± SD. *Statistically significant at P ≤ .05. a2-month vs baseline within TSD users group. b2-month vs baseline within MAD users group. cΔTSD vs ΔMAD. dNonparametric test. BP = blood pressure, CI = confidence interval, MAD = mandibular advancement device, OA = oral appliance, SD = standard deviation, TSD = tongue-stabilizing device, Δ = 2-month variable − baseline variable.