Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

PURPOSE: Oral appliances (OA) are commonly prescribed for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (OSAH), but there is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A model was designed to simulate the costs and benefits of treatment of OSAH with OA or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) based on their effects on quality of life, motor vehicle crashes, and cardiovascular effects. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of costs per one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained 5 years after treatment. RESULTS: Compared with no treatment, OA results in $268 higher costs and an incremental QALY of 0.0899 per patient (ICER = $2,984/QALY). Compared with OA, CPAP resulted in $1,917 more costs and 0.0696 additional QALYs (ICER = $27,540/QALY). For the most part in the sensitivity analyses, CPAP remained cost-effective compared to OA, and OA remained cost-effective with respect to no treatment in almost all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: OAs are less economically attractive than CPAP but remain a cost-effective treatment for patients who are unwilling or unable to adhere to CPAP therapy.

Original publication




Journal article


Sleep Breath

Publication Date





241 - 252


Adult, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Orthodontic Appliances, Removable, Prevalence, Severity of Illness Index, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Smoking, Stroke