MAD shows modest BP benefit over CPAP in OSA patients

Photo by Ozkan Guner / Unsplash

Frontiers in Medicine Published May 25, 2026 Medically reviewed May 25, 2026 DOI ↗ By Dr. Ji-eun Park, MD · Brain, Mind & Pain

Key Takeaway

MAD offers a small BP reduction advantage over CPAP for OSA patients, with better adherence but less AHI improvement.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluated mandibular advancement devices (MAD) versus CPAP and inactive controls for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The analysis included 1,141 patients, focusing on blood pressure as the primary outcome, with secondary measures including apnea-hypopnea index, sleepiness, and adherence.

For daytime systolic blood pressure, MAD achieved a significantly greater reduction compared to CPAP, with a mean difference of −1.99 mmHg (95% CI: −3.82 to −0.17; p=0.03). However, CPAP demonstrated superior physiological efficacy in reducing the apnea-hypopnea index, with a mean difference of 8.45 events per hour (p<0.001).

Nightly adherence was notably higher with MAD, showing a mean difference of 0.71 hours per night compared to CPAP (95% CI: 0.30 to 1.13; p<0.001). Safety data were not reported in the included studies.

These findings suggest that for OSA patients who cannot tolerate CPAP, MAD may serve as a viable alternative for cardiovascular risk management, despite CPAP's superior impact on AHI. The modest blood pressure benefit with MAD could be clinically meaningful in selected populations.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis

EvidenceLevel 1

PublishedMay 2026

View Original Abstract ↓

BackgroundContinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the gold standard for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), but its clinical effectiveness in cardiovascular risk management is often limited by suboptimal adherence.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate and compare the effects of mandibular advancement devices (MAD) vs. CPAP and inactive controls on blood pressure (BP), sleep-related respiratory events, and treatment adherence in patients with OSA.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from database inception to February 2026. RCTs reporting ambulatory BP outcomes pre- and post-MAD treatment were included. Secondary outcomes included the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and objective treatment adherence. Data were pooled using mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsFourteen independent RCTs (comprising 16 reports) encompassing a total of 1,141 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Compared with inactive controls, MAD showed overall trends of BP reduction. In head-to-head comparisons with CPAP, MAD demonstrated comparable cardiovascular benefits on 24-h and nighttime BP parameters. Notably, MAD achieved a significantly greater reduction in daytime systolic BP compared with CPAP (MD = −1.99 mmHg, 95% CI: −3.82 to −0.17; p = 0.03). While CPAP demonstrated superior physiological efficacy in reducing AHI (MD = 8.45 events/h, p < 0.001), MAD and CPAP yielded comparable improvements in subjective sleepiness (ESS). Crucially, pooled objective tracking data revealed that MAD had significantly longer nightly adherence than CPAP (MD = 0.71 h/night, 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.13; p < 0.001).ConclusionDespite a physiological inferiority in reducing AHI, MAD appears to offer cardiovascular benefits comparable to CPAP and demonstrates a statistically significant reduction in daytime SBP, which may be partially facilitated by its superior objective adherence. Therefore, for OSA patients who cannot tolerate CPAP, MAD may serve as a viable alternative option for cardiovascular risk management.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261303916, identifier: CRD420261303916.