Shock Absorption Capacities of Mouthguards in Different Types and Thicknesses

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Although sports mouthguards provide protection against trauma, dentoalveolar injuries can still occur with the mouthguards in place. This study examined the effect of mouthguard protection in an in vitro model. A simulated maxilla, out of a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) arch, containing replaceable resin teeth, was used to assess the performance of different mouthguard designs. “Boil and bite” and custom-fitted mouthguards (ethylene vinyl acetate [EVA]) laminated with hard (polyvinyl chloride [PVC]) or soft labial intermediate EVA layers were fabricated according to manufacturers' instructions. A steel ram was dropped onto the mouthguards at the maxillary incisor region. Changes in voltage, which were induced by a strain gauge at the back of the upper left incisor, were measured with an amplified voltmeter. Data were analysed by ANOVA at a significance level of 0.05. “Boil and bite” and mouthguards layered with silicone or with small hard PVC inserts of 1.5 mm thickness demonstrated less absorption and differed significantly from the other mouthguard systems (p < 0.05). Bilaminated mouthguards with hard PVC inserts of 0.8 mm, 1.5 mm or 2 mm thickness showed no significant differences to those with 1.5 mm thick (EVA) inserts. The absorption rates amounted to 33 % compared with the unprotected tooth.

References

• 1 ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) .Standard practice for care and use of mouthguards. Philadelphia; ASTM 1986 F 697/80
  Google Scholar
• 2 Chapman P J. Attitudes to mouthguards and prevalence of orofacial injuries in four teams competing at the second Rugby World Cup.  Br J Sports Med. 1993;  27 197-199
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 De Wet F A. The prevention of orofacial sports injuries in the adolescent.  Int Dent J. 1981;  31 313-319
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 De Young A K, Robinson E, Godwin W C. Comparing comfort and wearability cutsom-made vs. self adapted mouthguards.  J Am Dent Assoc. 1994;  125 1112-1118
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Fabra-Campos H, Dalmases F, Buendia M, Cibrian R. Dynamic resistance of teeth: Technical considerations and applications of an experimental device.  Endod Dent Traumatol. 1991;  7 10-14
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Flanders R A, Bhat M. The incidence of orofacial injuries in sports, a pilot study in Illinois.  J Am Dent Assoc. 1995;  126 491-496
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Fock N. Efficiency of mouthguards in anaesthesia. Cologne; Med Diss 1994
  Google Scholar
• 8 Jennings D C. Injuries sustained by users and non-users of gum shield in local rugby union.  Br J Sports Med. 1990;  24 159-165
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Johnston T, Messer L B. An in vitro study of the efficacy of mouthguard protection for dentoalveolar injuries in decidous and mixed conditions.  Endod Dent Traumatol. 1996;  12 277-285
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kerr I L. Mouth guards for the prevention of injuries in contact sports.  Sports Med. 1986;  3 415-427
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Lancaster D M, Ranalli D N. Comparative evaluation of college football officials' attitudes toward NCAA mouthguard regulations and player compliance.  Pediatr Dent. 1993;  15 398-402
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Miller M, Truhe T F. Mouthguard use should be encouraged for many sports.  Dentistry. 1991;  11 21-22
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Oikarinen K S. Causes and types of traumatic tooth injuries treated in a public dental health clinic.  Endod Dent Traumatol. 1987;  3 172-177
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Park J B, Shaull K L, Overton B, Donly K. Improving mouth guards.  J Prosthet Dent. 1994;  72 373-380
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Porter M, O'Brien M. The “Buy-Max” Mouthguard: Oral, Peri-Oral and Cerebral Protection for Contact Sports.  J Ir Dental Assoc. 1993;  40 98-101
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Ranalli D N. Prevention of craniofacial injuries in football.  Dent Clin North Am. 1991;  35 627-645
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Ranalli D N, Lancaster D M. Attitudes of college football officials regarding NCAA mouthguard regulations and player compliance.  J Public Health Dent. 1993;  53 96-100
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Ranalli D N, Lancaster D M. Attitudes of college football officials regarding NCAA mouthguard regulations and player compliance.  J Public Health Dent. 1993;  53 139-142
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Rodd H D, Chesham D J. Sports-related oral injury and mouthguard use among Sheffield school children.  Community Dent Health. 1997;  14 25-30
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Sane J, Ylipaavalniemi P. Dental trauma in contact team sports.  Endod Dent Traumatol. 1988;  4 164-169
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Schwanzer A S. Comparing experimental study of different mouthguard applications at a multiband equipped with a jaw model. Tübingen; Med Diss 1997
  Google Scholar
• 22 Watermeyer G J, Thomas C J, Jooste C H. The protective potential of mouthguards.  J Dent Assoc S Afr. 1985;  40 173-177
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Westerman B, Stringfellow P M, Ecclestone J A. An improved mouthguard material.  Aust Dent J. 1997;  42 189-191
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Westerman B, Stringfellow P M, Ecclestone J A. Forces transmitted through EVA mouthguard materials of different types and thickness.  Aust Dent J. 1995;  40 389-391
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Woodsmansey K F. Athletic mouthguards prevent orofacial injuries.  Am Coll Health. 1997;  45 179-182
  PubMedGoogle Scholar

Prof. Dr. med. dent. P. Pfeiffer

Department of Prosthetic DentistrySchool of Oral MedicineUniversity of Cologne

Kerpener Straße 3250931 CologneGermany

Phone: Phone:+ 49 (221) 478 4717

Fax: Fax:+ 49 (221) 478 6722

Email: E-mail:peter.peiffer@uni-koeln.de