Custom mouthguards are used in various sports disciplines as a protection for teeth, temporomandibular joints, and soft tissues of the oral cavity from impact forces. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the mechanical properties of flexible polymeric 3D-printable materials and to select a material with the most favourable physical properties for making intraoral protectors. Four 3D-printable polymeric materials were selected for the evaluation: IMPRIMO LC IBT (Scheu-Dental, Iserlohn, Germany), Keyortho IBT (EnvisionTEC, Gladbeck, Germany), IBT (Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA), and Ortho IBT (NextDent, Utrecht, Netherlands). A total of 176 samples (44 from each material) was 3D-printed using the stereolitography (SLA) technique. Tensile strength, flexural strength, notch-toughness, Shore hardness, sorption, and solubility tests were conducted. The materials were compared using a series of analyses of variance (one-way ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc tests. Statistical analyses were performed with the use of IBM SPSS Statistics 28.0.0 software (IBM, New York, NY, USA). Each material was assigned a score from 1 to 4 depending on the individual test results, and tests were given indexes according to the significance of the parameter in the mouthguard protective function. The number of points obtained by each material in each test was then multiplied by the test index, and the results were tabulated. The material with the highest result among the ones studied—most suitable for the application in mouthguard fabrication—was Keyortho IBT from EnvisionTEC.

Wstęp. Najczęściej stosowane indywidualne ochraniacze wykonane z etyleno-octanu-winylu (EVA) mają istotną wadę-podczas formowania materiał ulega rozciągnięciu i wycienieniu. Wielu autorów opisuje możliwe rozwiązania tego efektu ubocznego. Obecnie są dostępne materiały umożliwiające wykonanie ochraniacza wewnątrzustnego o przewidywalnych wymiarach. Jednak, pomimo odpowiednich właściwości pochłaniających energię, procedura wykonawstwa laboratoryjnego jest bardziej złożona. Cel pracy. Celem pracy było zaproponowanie uproszczonej procedury wykonania ochraniaczy indywidualnych. Materiał i metody. W badaniu oceniono 60 indywidualnych ochraniaczy wewnątrzustnych wykonanych z użyciem metody bezpośredniego modelowania wzorca szyny ochronnej dla 30 sportowców. Wykonano zmodyfikowany wycisk dwuszczękowy na dostosowanej łyżce wyciskowej dla szczęki a następnie dostosowano silikonowy

Ethylene vinyl acetate mouthguards are the most often used custom protective intraoral appliances by combat sports practitioners. However, due to the difficulties in maintaining the hygiene of such mouthguards and thinning during fabrication, resulting in difficulty in predicting final dimensions, they may not be the optimal solution. The aim of this research was to evaluate an innovative method of mouthguard formation using intraoral modeling of the mouthguard pattern, hybrid acrylic material, and the addition of ZnO nanoparticles. Seventeen mouthguards patterns and 34 custom mouthguards were evaluated: 17 hybrid and 17 nanohybrid. A total of 1122 measurements were performed: each mouthguard and pattern was measured at 22 points. Statistical analyses were performed with the use of IBM® SPSS® Statistics 27.0.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY USA). The mean thickness of the patterns and mouthguards at all labial areas of central incisors were between 4.65 and 4.80 mm. The thickness at the buccal surface of the first molar was between 3.71 and 4 mm, and at the occlusal surface between 3.40 and 3.56 mm in the cusp area. All measurements of hybrid and nanohybrid mouthguards were strongly and highly correlated with the measurements of the mouthguard patterns. Hybrid and nanohybrid mouthguards are an advantageous alternative to thermoformed custom appliances.

Polymeric liners are materials commonly used in prosthodontics to reshape denture surfaces contacting the soft tissues of the oral cavity. The aim of the study was to determine the impact of different cleaning methods on two polymeric materials used in prosthodontics as non-adhesive permanent liners. The material for the research consisted of samples made from Mollosil Plus (Detax, Ettlingen, Germany)—direct polysiloxan liner; and Plastitanium (Pressing Dental, San Marino, Republic of San Marino)—an injection-molded liner. A total of 198 samples were made, 99 of each assessed material. They were exposed to different cleaning methods—a toothbrush, a toothbrush and soap, a toothbrush and toothpaste (BlendaMed, Procter&Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA), a toothpaste and denture cleaning paste (Protefix Hygiene Denture Paste, Queisser Pharma, Germany), denture cleansing tablets (Protefix Hygiene Cleaning Tablets, Queisse Pharma, Germany), and a disinfecting spray (Aftermat, Port Jefferson Station, New York City, NY, USA)—for 1 min, 5 min, 10 min, and 15 min. The image acquisition was performed with scanning electron microscopy and samples were analyzed for the homogeneity of their surfaces—the presence of holes, grooves, precipitate, and small and large separating pieces of the material marking departures from this homogeneity. For each type of damage, one point was given. Continuous data from two groups were compared with Mann–Whitney U testing. Due to a small sample size and distribution of variables other than normal, to compare more than two groups, Kruskal–Wallis testing with post hoc analysis (Dunn test with Bonferroni correction) was used. Categorical data were compared with the chi-square test and the Fisher’s exact test. The Mollosil Plus material should be decontaminated with the use of a toothbrush or toothbrush with soap, while Plastitanium material should be disinfected. Plastitanium samples are more susceptible to damage during the decontamination procedures than Mollosil Plus.

StreszczenieLeczenie protetyczne po urazach przebiegających z utratą zębów może polegać na uzupełnieniu braków zębowych protezami ruchomymi lub uzupełnieniami stałymi opartymi na zębach własnych lub na wszczepach śródkostnych. Nie zawsze istnieje jednak możliwość wykonania natychmiastowej odbudowy implantoprotetycznej a osadzenie koron na wszczepach dopiero po okresie osteointegracji wiąże się z obecnością braków zębowych do zakończenia tego procesu. W pracy opisano przypadek 25-letniej pacjentki, która doznała urazu części twarzowej czaszki i złamania w obrębie szczęki oraz części zębodołowej żuchwy z tkwiącymi w odłamie trzema zębami. Doszło także do wybicia i jakościowego uszkodzenia koron zębów oraz przebicia powłok skórnych. Po czterech tygodniach od zabiegu operacyjnego pacjentka zgłosiła się w celu wykonania odbudowy tymczasowej w żuchwie przed planowanym w przyszłości leczeniem implantoprotetycznym.Przypadek pacjentki był trudny do standardowego tymczasowego zaopatrzenia protetycznego w postaci protezy płytowej w związku z osteosyntezą minipłytkową złamanego fragmentu części zębodołowej żuchwy. Podjęto decyzję o wykonaniu