Fit Of Mouthguard Research Articles

Longitudinal changes in mouthguard fit: Reliability of an evaluation method.

A mouthguard should be replaced when it deteriorates or becomes deformed as a result of the softness or flexibility of the material. The question, however, is how long can one use a mouthguard and when should one replace it with a newly made mouthguard? The aim of this study was to develop an improved method for measuring the fit of mouthguards based on previous reports and to examine its reliability. Silicone fit-testing material was applied to the inner surface of the mouthguards of 12 participants, and the mouthguards were inserted into the participants' oral cavity. After the test material had set, the mouthguard was weighed. The intra-rater reliability and inter-rater reliability were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients. The intra-rater reliability was 0.813 (P<.001), and the inter-rater reliability was 0.817 (P<.001). Both values were greater than 0.7, suggesting that this measuring method had sufficient reliability. The results of this study indicate that mouthguard fit can be evaluated longitudinally to determine the optimal time to replace a mouthguard.

Pressure-forming method using a single-mouthguard sheet.

Mouthguard thickness is important for the prevention of orofacial trauma during sports. However, it is difficult to maintain the necessary thickness after forming the mouthguard. The aim of this study was to evaluate a pressure-forming method using a single-mouthguard sheet. A mouthguard sheet of 3.8mm ethylene vinyl acetate was prepared by cutting 3mm from the anterior margin of the sheet holder with a length of 7mm and with the width being from the buccal cusp of the upper right first premolar to the buccal cusp of the upper left first premolar and compared with the original sheet. The sheets were pressure-formed when the sheet was heated until the centre was displaced by 15mm from baseline. The thickness of the mouthguard was measured at the labial surface of the central incisor, and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar. The fit of the mouthguard was examined at the right central incisor and right first molar by measuring the distance between the mouthguard and the cervical margin of the working model. Differences in the thickness and the fit of the mouthguards between the sheet conditions and the measured regions were analysed by two-way analysis of variance. Mouthguard thickness varied among the measured regions of the central incisors and first molars (P<.01). The greatest thickness was found at the labial surface of the central incisor in mouthguards fabricated using the cut sheet (P<.01). Mouthguard fit did not differ between the two sheets. The results suggest that a useful mouthguard with proper thickness and fit can be produced with the pressure-forming method using a single-mouthguard sheet by cutting the anterior part of the sheet.

Thickness and fit of mouthguards adjusted by notching thermoplastic sheets under different heating conditions.

This study examines the thickness and fit of mouthguards by notching thermoplastic copolymer ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) sheets and then heating them to various degrees. The material used was a 3.8-mm-thick sports mouthguard. Notches with a length of 90 and 80 mm were cut into an EVA sheet 20 mm from the anterior and posterior margins and 15 mm from the right and left margins, respectively, and the sheet was compared with the original. The sheets were formed using a vacuum former when the sheets were heated until they hung 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 cm from the baseline. We measured the thickness and fit of the mouthguard at the central incisor and first molar. Differences in thickness and fit according to the measurement parts, sheet type, and heating conditions were analyzed by three-way anova. The measurement parts and sheet type significantly differed (P < 0.01), and the notched sheet maintained the required thickness. Fit differed among the measurement parts and by heating conditions (P < 0.01), but was not affected by the notching. The mouthguard fit was optimal when the sheets were heated to a hanging distance of 3.0 cm. These results suggest that the thickness and fit of the EVA sheet could be maintained by notching and heating the sheet to a hanging distance of 3.0 cm. These findings could be useful for fabricating appropriate mouthguards.

Influence of sheet material shape on the thickness and fit of mouthguards

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sheet material shape on the thickness and fit of mouthguards. Mouthguards were fabricated using ethylene vinyl acetate sheets (4.0 mm thick) and a vacuum-forming machine. The working model was trimmed to a height of 20 mm at the incisor and 15 mm at the first molar. Three forming conditions were compared: Square sheets were fabricated while being secured by the clamping frames attached to the forming machine; round sheets were fabricated while secured by a circle tray; and square sheets were fabricated while secured by a circle tray. Each condition was defined when the sheet sagged by 15 mm below the level of the clamp. The thickness of the sheet was determined for the incisal and molar portion. Additionally, the difference in fit according to the forming conditions was analyzed. Differences in the material thickness or the fit due to forming conditions were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (anova). Round sheets resulted in the thinnest mouthguard at the incisor and molar region and produced the best fit. For square sheets, no significant difference in thickness was observed between the clamping frame and circle tray methods. The fit of the mouthguard at the first molar was better when using square sheets fabricated by a circle tray than those fabricated by the clamping frame. In conclusion, when molding a mouthguard using square sheets, the thickness reduction was less and fit was better with using a circle tray, which may be clinically useful.

Thickness and fit of mouthguards according to heating methods

The purpose of this study was to examine the difference in the thickness and fit of mouthguards made by four different heating methods of the mouthguard sheet material. A Sports Mouthguard(®) of 3.8-mm thickness was used in this study. Four heating methods were performed. In one method, the sheet was heated only one side. In the other methods, one side of the sheet was heated first until the center of the sheet was displaced by 0.5cm, 1.0cm, and 1.5cm from the baseline, and then turned upside down and heated. The sheets were adapted using a vacuum former when the heated sheets hung 1.5cm from the baseline. We measured the thickness and fit of the mouthguard at the areas of the central incisor and first molar. The difference in thickness at the central incisor and first molar regions was analyzed by two-way anova. The difference in fit with different heating methods was analyzed by one-way anova. The results showed that the thickness of the mouthguard differed in the central incisor and first molar areas (P<0.01 or P<0.05), but not with the heating methods. The fit of the mouthguard at the central incisor and first molar areas was significantly different among the heating methods (P<0.01 and P<0.05). These results suggested that the fit of the mouthguard was superior when the heated surface of the sheet contacted the surface of the working model. This finding may help to fabricate accurate mouthguards.

Thickness and fit of mouthguards according to a vacuum-forming process

The purpose of this study was to examine the difference in the thickness and the fit of mouthguards fabricated with a vacuum-forming method of the mouthguard sheet material. The material used in this study was Sports Mouthguard (3.8 mm thickness). Two forming conditions were performed. In the first condition, the sheet was lowered over the working model after the vacuum was applied, and in the other trial, the sheet was lowered over the working model before the vacuum was applied. The sheets were formed using a vacuum former when the heated sheets hung 1.5 cm from the baseline. We measured the thickness and the fit of the mouthguard at the areas of the central incisor and first molar in both conditions. The difference of the thickness at the areas of the central incisor and first molar and the forming condition was analyzed by Two-way anova. The difference of the fit according to the forming conditions was analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. The results showed that the thickness of the mouthguard differed at the areas of the central incisor and first molar, but the thickness of the mouthguard did not differ according to the forming conditions. The fit of the mouthguard at the central incisor and first molar was significantly different between the forming conditions (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05). These results suggested that the fit of the mouthguard was the best without any deficiency of thickness when the vacuum was applied first and then the sheet was pressed onto the working model. These results may be useful in fabricating proper mouthguards.