The mouthguard had beneficial effect considering the stresses on enamel, and between the mouthguard thickness of 3 and 4 mm, there was minimum difference.

Objective To compare periapical radiograph (PR) and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the diagnosis of alveolar and root fractures.Material and Methods Sixty incisor teeth (20 higid and 40 with root fracture) from dogs were inserted in 60 anterior alveolar sockets (40 higid and 20 with alveolar fracture) of 15 macerated canine maxillae. Each fractured socket had a root fractured tooth inserted in it. Afterwards, each maxilla was submitted to PR in two different vertical angulation incidences, and to CBCT imaging with a small field of view (FOV) and high-definition protocol. Images were randomized and posteriorly analyzed by two oral and maxillofacial radiologists two times, with a two-week interval between observations.Results Sensitivity and specificity values were good for root fractures for PR and CBCT. For alveolar fractures, sensitivity ranged from 0.10 to 0.90 for PR and from 0.50 to 0.65 for CBCT. Specificity for alveolar fractures showed lower results than for root fractures for PR and CBCT. Areas under the ROC curve showed good results for both PR and CBCT for root fractures. However, results were fair for both PR and CBCT for alveolar fractures. When submitted to repeated measures ANOVA tests, there was a statistically significant difference between PR and CBCT for root fractures. Root fracture intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.90 to 0.93, and alveolar fracture intraobserver agreement ranged from 0.30 to 0.57. Interobserver agreement results were substantial for root fractures and poor/fair for alveolar fractures (0.11 for PR and 0.30 for CBCT).Conclusion Periapical radiograph with two different vertical angulations may be considered an accurate method to detect root fractures. However, PR showed poorer results than CBCT for the diagnosis of alveolar fractures. When no fractures are diagnosed in PR and the patient describes pain symptoms, the subsequent exam of choice is CBCT.

ABSTRACT. Current study analyzes the characteristics and epidemiology of oral and nasal fractures and knowledge degree regarding the use of a mouthguard by an amateur university handball team in Brazil. A cross-sectional study comprised 138 students who practiced the sport. They were interviewed on dental and nasal fractures and on the need of mouthguards in games such as amateur handball. Data were processed by descriptive analysis. Results showed that 19.6% had suffered some type of dental injury during the practice of sports, namely 40 fractured teeth; 12% had fractured nasal bones; 57% underwent head and neck injuries; 32% were unaware of the need to use a mouthguard during sports; 68% had heard of mouthguards, but only 4.5% of the interviewees made use of this protection device. There was a high prevalence of nasal and dental fractures in the group under analysis. The upper central incisors were most susceptible to fracture. Even though most athletes knew a mouthguard was needed during sports activities, only 4.5% actually used one.Keywords: tooth injuries, traumatic dental injuries, athletic injuries, personal protection, epidemiology, sports.Características e epidemiologia das fraturas maxilo-faciais no esporte em estudantes universitários RESUMO. O presente estudo analisou as características epidemilógicas de fraturas orais e nasais, bem como o grau de conhecimento sobre o uso de um protetor bucal no esporte amador, cujo corpus é a equipe de handebol da Universidade no Brasil. Em um estudo transversal foram entrevistados 138 atletas sobre a ocorrência de fraturas dentais e nasais, além de seu conhecimento acerca da necessidade na prática de handebol amador universitário; os dados foram tabulados e apresentados por meio de análise descritiva. Um total de 19,6% sofreu algum tipo de lesão dental durante a prática do esporte, totalizando 40 dentes fraturados, 12% sofreram fraturas dos ossos nasais, 57% sofreram ferimentos na cabeça e pescoço, 32% não sabiam da necessidade de usar um protetor bucal para o esporte; 68% referiram já ter ouvido falar de protetores bucais, mas apenas 4,5% dos entrevistados fizeram uso deste dispositivo de proteção. Houve alta prevalência de fraturas nasais e dentais no grupo analisado. Os incisivos centrais superiores foram os dentes mais suscetíveis a fraturas. Mesmo que a maioria dos atletas saiba da necessidade de usar um protetor bucal, apenas 4,5% realmente fazem uso desse equipamento.Palavras-chave: trauma dentário, lesões traumáticas dentárias, lesões esportivas, proteção pessoal, epidemiologia, esportes.