## 3 Results
### VOTE Classification without the TMA Simulator  
Table 5 shows the scores of the VOTE classification of non-responders and responders. The two groups did not show significant differences in the distribution of scores at the base of the tongue and epiglottis (\(p\) > 0.05). At the oropharynx level, non-responders showed a higher percentage of patients with complete latero-lateral obstruction while in responders the percentage of partial latero-lateral obstruction was higher (\(p\) = 0.003). At the level of the velum, the two groups showed a significant difference in the distribution of the VOTE scores (\(p\) = 0.008). In particular, in non-responders, there was a significantly higher proportion of complete circular obstruction while in responders there was a significantly higher proportion of partial and complete anterior-posterior collapse.  
### VOTE Classification without the TMA Simulator  
Table 5 shows the scores of the VOTE classification of non-responders and responders. The two groups did not show significant differences in the distribution of scores at the base of the tongue and epiglottis (\(p\) > 0.05). At the oropharynx level, non-responders showed a higher percentage of patients with complete latero-lateral obstruction while in responders the percentage of partial latero-lateral obstruction was higher (\(p\) = 0.003). At the level of the velum, the two groups showed a significant difference in the distribution of the VOTE scores (\(p\) = 0.008). In particular, in non-responders, there was a significantly higher proportion of complete circular obstruction while in responders there was a significantly higher proportion of partial and complete anterior-posterior collapse.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**VOTE Classification**} \\ \hline  & **0** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & \(p\) \\ \hline V & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Non Resp. & 5 (3.9\%) & 2 (1.6\%) & 18 (14.1\%) & 3 (2.3\%) & 34 (26.6\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 66 (51.6\%) & & & 0.008 \\ \hline Resp. & 5 (2.4\%) & 13 (6.3\%) & 53 (25.6\%) & 5 (2.4\%) & 62 (30.0\%) & 1 (0.5\%) & 68 (32.9\%) & & & \\ \hline O & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Non Resp. & 14 (10.9\%) & 5 (3.9\%) & 109 (85.2\%) & & & & & & & 0.003 \\ \hline Resp. & 41 (19.8\%) & 23 (11.1\%) & 143 (69.1\%) & & & & & & & \\ \hline T & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Non Resp. & 60 (46.9\%) & 24 (18.8\%) & 44 (34.4\%) & & & & & & & 0.103 \\ \hline Resp. & 86 (41.5\%) & 27 (13.0\%) & 94 (45.4\%) & & & & & & & \\ \hline E & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Non Resp. & 83 (64.8\%) & 8 (6.3\%) & 22 (17.2\%) & 1 (0.8\%) & 5 (3.9\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 5 (3.9\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 4 (3.1\%) & 0 (0.0\%) \\ \hline Resp. & 123 (59.4\%) & 16 (7.7\%) & 48 (23.2\%) & 1 (0.5\%) & 4 (1.9\%) & 2 (1.0\%) & 11 (5.3\%) & 1 (0.5\%) & 0 (0.0\%) & 1 (0.5\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Non Resp.: non-responders to mandibular advancement similar during DISE; Resp.: responder to mandibular advancement simulator during DISE.  
\end{table}
Table 5: Comparison between responders and non-responders: VOTE classification.  
Figure 3: Obstructive sites in “non-responders” (**a**) and “responders” (**b**) without the TMA simulator; red = velopharynx, green = oropharynx, blue = tongue, yellow = epiglottis. The numbers indicate the numbers of patients.