[5, 6] Studies evaluating CPAP and oral appliance effectiveness in improving daytime sleepiness, as defined by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, have demonstrated comparable results in patients with mild to moderate OSA.[7] Patient preference for oral appliances as an alternative to CPAP is well documented.[8] The indications for oral appliance therapy for patients with mild to moderate OSA include patient preference of oral appliances to CPAP, a history of failed CPAP therapy, candidates not appropriate for CPAP, and CPAP nonresponders.[2, 4, 9] Treatment efficacy requires that a patient receiving an

oral appliance will faithfully use it according to the practitioner’s instructions. As with other chronic diseases, patient compliance with prescribed treatment can be problematic. Many investigators have studied patient compliance selleck based on self-reporting. Studies evaluating weekly use report an average of 68% of patients use the device every night, 23% several nights a week, and 8% less than several CYC202 datasheet nights per week.[3]

Research evaluating patient compliance over a period of less than 1 year found a median use of 77% of nights.[3] Adherence rates have been shown to decline over time with one study reporting 48% adherence at 2 years,[10] and another study reporting an adherence of 32% at 4 years.[5] It has been suggested that long-term compliance with oral appliances is comparable to that of CPAP.[11] Studies comparing subjective reporting of CPAP compliance with objective data reveal that patients generally overestimate their CPAP usage and may in fact be poorly this website compliant with their self-reporting.[12, 13] Subjective reporting, therefore, is not the most ideal method of evaluating patient compliance. To date, three studies have attempted to objectively evaluate patient compliance with oral appliance therapy. Lowe et al[14] used a monitor

imbedded into the MRDs of 12 patients over a 2-week period. The investigators found a mean compliance of 6.8 hours/night with a range of 5.6 to 7.5 hours/night. Inoko et al[15] evaluated data gathered from a covert monitor from 6 patients over the course of 1 month and reported objective compliance rates ranging from 20% to 100%. Finally, Vanderveken et al[16] found objective usage of a covert monitor from 43 patients to be 6.7 ± 1.3 hours/night over a 3-month period. These studies relied on monitors that regularly and continuously sampled ambient temperature as the means of measuring patient compliance. A fundamental tradeoff exists between accurately reconstructing temperature data and performance metrics such as memory life and power consumption. A high polling rate improves a sensor’s ability to detect rate dependent information, which improves accuracy and precision of measurements as well as filtering against noise.