CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02964299Updated Nov 16, 2016

Mandibular Advancement Bite Block Efficacy Observational Study

An observational study in Airway Obstruction, sponsored by Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan. Completed at 1 site in Taiwan. Open to participants aged 20 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2016-11-16.

Sponsored by Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
120
Ages
20 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of mandibular advancement bite block to standard bite block for prevention of hypoxemia, intervention events and adverse effects during endoscopic examinations.

Read the detailed description

During endoscopic examinations, especially upper gastrointestinal, bile duct, or bronchoscopic examinations, the endoscope need to be placed through the mouth. A bite block is used to protect vulnerable endoscope and protect patient's teeth. During sedative endoscopic exams, respiratory depression, apnea or upper airway obstruction will occur under the influence of the sedative medications. Serious adverse events may occur such as hypoxemia. A nasal airway, Larson's maneuver, jaw thrust or chin lift may be needed to open airways.

Mandibular advancement devices has been widely used in treating obstructive sleep apnea. A modified bite block that provides mandibular advancement could provide entry inlet of endoscope as well as provide mandibular advancement to provide patent airway during sedative endoscopy. In this study, we group the patients into test group using mandibular advancement bite block and a control group using standard bite block. After anesthetic induction, gastric endoscopy was performed. Degree of upper airway obstruction will be evaluated and recorded. Differences between the two groups will be evaluated.

02

Conditions studied

  • Airway Obstruction

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Gastrointestinal endoscopy
  • Moderate sedation
  • Airway management
03

In context

Airway Obstruction

154 studies on the registry are indexed under Airway Obstruction; 30 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 120 is close to the median of 120 across 59 observational studies indexed under Airway Obstruction.

Browse Airway Obstruction studies →

Lead sponsor

Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan is the lead sponsor of 325 studies on the registry; 72 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
20 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

ASA class I or II patients admitted for routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Inclusion criteria

  • American Society of Anesthesiologist class I or II
  • Patients undergoing routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under sedation

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Baseline oxygen saturation \< 90%
  • Known difficult airway
  • Oral or facial surgery history
  • BMI > 35
  • patients with gastroparesis or gastrointestinal bleeding
  • anticipated exam time > 30 minutes
05

Study design

Observational model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
120 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Standard

    Standard bite block

  • Mandibular advancement bite block

    Mandibular advancement by 3 mm, 6 mm or 9 mm from neutral position

    Device: Mandibular advancement bite block

Interventions

  • DeviceMandibular advancement bite block

    Mandibular advancement bite block that provides mandibular advancement by 3 mm, 6 mm, or 9 mm from neutral position

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Area under curve of 95% oxygen desaturation

    From start of sedation drug administration to end of endoscopic examination with the endoscope withdrawal from patient's mouth, peripheral oxygen saturation recorded. Area under curve of 95% oxygen desaturation is calculated by (95-saturation) x time.

    Time frame: up to 30 minutes

Secondary outcomes

  1. number of rescue interventions: chin lift, jaw thrust, insertion of nasal airway or mask-bag ventilation

    From start of sedation drug administration to end of endoscopic examination with the endoscope withdrawal from patient's mouth, number of events such as chin lift, jaw thrust, insertion of nasal airway, or mask-bag ventilation recorded.

    Time frame: up to 30 minutes

  2. Adverse events: partial or complete airway obstruction, or apnea

    From start of sedation drug administration to end of endoscopic examination with the endoscope withdrawal from patient's mouth, number of events such as snoring, stridor, apnea, airway obstruction or loss of end tidal carbon dioxide waveform recorded.

    Time frame: up to 30 minutes

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Department of Anesthesiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital
    Taipei, 112, Taiwan
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 16, 2016, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02964299
Lead sponsor
Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 16, 2016
Start date
Jul 2016
Primary completion
Oct 2016
Completion
Oct 2016
Last update
Nov 16, 2016

Study contacts

Wei-Nung Teng, MD
principal investigator · Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2016. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion