Abstract
A multilayer mouth guard is known to have the best protective performance. However, its manufacturing in a digital workflow may be challenging with regards to virtual design and materialization. The present case demonstrates a pathway to fabricate a multilayer individualized mouth guard in a fully digital workflow, which starts with intraoral scanning. A free-form CAD software was used for the virtual design. Two various CAM techniques were used, including Polyjet 3D printing of rubber-like soft material and silicone printing using Drop-on-Demand technique. For both methods the outer layer was manufactured from more rigid materials to facilitate its protective function; the inner layer was printed from a softer material to aid a better adaptation to mucosa and teeth. Both 3D printed multilayer mouth guards showed a clinically acceptable fit and were met with patient appraisal. Their protective capacities must be evaluated in further clinical studies.
Highlights
A mouth guard (MG) is a piece of personal protective equipment which is placed inside the oral cavity to reduce traumatic impact on teeth, mucosa, and alveolar bone during sport activities [1,2]
A large variety of MGs is available on the market today, ranging from trade products to customizable ready-made types to individualized custommade appliance [3]
Customizable ready-made products are made of thermoplastics, fitted within an oral cavity with the use of the boil-and-bite technique and are the most frequently used [4]
Summary
A mouth guard (MG) is a piece of personal protective equipment which is placed inside the oral cavity to reduce traumatic impact on teeth, mucosa, and alveolar bone during sport activities [1,2]. Customizable ready-made products are made of thermoplastics, fitted within an oral cavity with the use of the boil-and-bite technique and are the most frequently used [4]. Their fit and protecting performance is questionable. MGs were reported to have a higher shock absorbance and a better fit within an oral cavity, allowing for superior wearing comfort [5,6]. An average thickness of 4 mm is considered to be optimal for a MG to withstand the expected traumatic impact while not interfering with the wearer’s comfort [7,8,9,10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call