Difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order.
fabrication
laminate order
mouthguard
thickness
Journal
Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology
ISSN: 1600-9657
Titre abrégé: Dent Traumatol
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 101091305
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
revised:
27
11
2020
received:
04
08
2020
accepted:
28
11
2020
pubmed:
31
12
2020
medline:
14
5
2021
entrez:
30
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Mouthguard thickness should be maintained to prevent oral trauma by protecting the teeth and the surrounding soft tissue. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order. The mouthguard sheets used in this study were 2.0 mm and 3.0 mm ethylene-vinyl acetate. The sheets were pressure-formed using a pressure former, and the laminated mouthguard was fabricated. Two laminate conditions were examined. One condition used the 2.0-mm sheet for the first layer and the 3.0-mm sheet for the second layer (condition 2F3S) and the other condition used the 3.0-mm sheet for the first layer and 2.0-mm sheet for the second layer (condition 3F2S). The first layer was trimmed to cover the labial surface and incisal edge of the anterior teeth and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the posterior teeth. The second layer was formed over the first layer. The mouthguard thickness was measured at the labial surface of the central incisor and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar. Differences in thickness by measurement region of mouthguards formed under different laminate conditions were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance. The mouthguard thickness was significantly different at the measured regions of the central incisors and the first molars (p < .01). The thickness at the labial surface of the central incisor and at the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar became statistically significantly larger with the 3F2S condition than that for the 2F3S condition (p < .05 or p < .01). The thickness of the laminated mouthguard became larger when the sheet thickness of the first layer was greater. It is recommended to use the thicker mouthguard sheet as the first layer when fabricating a laminated mouthguard.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIM
OBJECTIVE
Mouthguard thickness should be maintained to prevent oral trauma by protecting the teeth and the surrounding soft tissue. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
The mouthguard sheets used in this study were 2.0 mm and 3.0 mm ethylene-vinyl acetate. The sheets were pressure-formed using a pressure former, and the laminated mouthguard was fabricated. Two laminate conditions were examined. One condition used the 2.0-mm sheet for the first layer and the 3.0-mm sheet for the second layer (condition 2F3S) and the other condition used the 3.0-mm sheet for the first layer and 2.0-mm sheet for the second layer (condition 3F2S). The first layer was trimmed to cover the labial surface and incisal edge of the anterior teeth and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the posterior teeth. The second layer was formed over the first layer. The mouthguard thickness was measured at the labial surface of the central incisor and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar. Differences in thickness by measurement region of mouthguards formed under different laminate conditions were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mouthguard thickness was significantly different at the measured regions of the central incisors and the first molars (p < .01). The thickness at the labial surface of the central incisor and at the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar became statistically significantly larger with the 3F2S condition than that for the 2F3S condition (p < .05 or p < .01).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The thickness of the laminated mouthguard became larger when the sheet thickness of the first layer was greater. It is recommended to use the thicker mouthguard sheet as the first layer when fabricating a laminated mouthguard.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
497-501Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Newsome PR, Tran DC, Cooke MS. The role of the mouthguard in the prevention of sports-related dental injuries: a review. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2001;11:396-404.
Low D. Mouthguard protection and sports-related dental trauma. Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2002;16:153-5.
Patrick DG, van Noort R, Found MS. Scale of protection and the various types of sports mouthguard. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39:278-81.
Green JI. The role of mouthguards in preventing and reducing sports-related trauma. Prim Dent J. 2017;6:27-34.
Tanaka Y, Tsugawa T, Maeda Y. Effect of mouthguards on impact to the craniomandibular complex. Dent Traumatol. 2017;33:51-6.
Tribst JPM, de Oliveira Dal Piva AM, Borges ALS, Bottino MA. Influence of custom-made and stock mouthguard thickness on biomechanical response to a simulated impact. Dent Traumatol. 2018;34:429-37.
Del Rossi G, Leyte Vidal MA. Fabricating a better mouthguard. Part I: factors influencing mouthguard thinning. Dent Traumatol. 2007;23:149-54.
Malhotra N, Kundabala M, Acharaya S. A review of root fractures: diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. Dent Update. 2011;38(9):615-28. 619-20, 623-4 passim.
Waked EJ, Caputo AA. Thickness and stiffness characteristics of custom-made mouthguard materials. Quintessence Int. 2005;36:462-6.
Choy MM. A comparison of custom-made mouthguards. Hawaii Dent J. 1998;29:28.
Padilla RR. A technique for fabricating modern athletic mouthguards. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2005;33:399-408.
Kenyon BJ, Loos LG. Comparing comfort and wearability between Type III single-layered and double-layered EVA mouthguards. Gen Dent. 2005;53:261-4.
Miura J, Maeda Y, Machi H, Matsuda S. Mouthguards: difference in longitudinal dimensional stability between single- and double-laminated fabrication techniques. Dent Traumatol. 2007;23:9-13.
Takeda T, Ishigami K, Kawamura S, Nakajima K, Shimada A, Sumii T, et al. Adhesive strength and its improvement referring to the laminated-type mouthguard. Dent Traumatol. 2006;22:205-14.
Takeda T, Ishigami K, Handa J, Naitoh K, Kurokawa K, Shibusawa M, et al. Does hard insertion and space improve shock absorption ability of mouthguard? Dent Traumatol. 2006;22:77-82.
Handa J, Takeda T, Kurokawa K, Ozawa T, Nakajima K, Ishigami K. Influence of pre-laminated material on shock absorption ability in specially designed mouthguard with hard insert and space. J Prosthodont Res. 2011;55:214-20.
Tunc ES, Ozdemir TE, Arici S. Postfabrication thickness of single- and double-layered pressure-formed mouthguards. Dent Traumatol. 2013;29:378-82.
Mizuhashi F, Koide K. Appropriate fabrication method for vacuum-formed mouthguards. Dent Traumatol. 2017;33:110-3.
Yamada J, Maeda Y. Thermoforming process for fabricating oral appliances: influence of heating and pressure application timing on formability. J Prosthodont. 2007;16:452-6.
Mizuhashi F, Koide K, Takahashi M. Difference in pressure-formed mouthguard thickness according to heating condition. Dent Traumatol. 2016;32:22-6.
Verissimo C, Costa PV, Santos-Filho PC, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, Soares CJ. Custom-fitted EVA mouthguards: what is the ideal thickness? a dynamic finite element impact study. Dent Traumatol. 2016;32:95-102.