Difference among shock‐absorbing capabilities of mouthguard materials

Abstract

These results suggest that all of the commercially available mouthguard sheet materials had high shock-absorbing capabilities.

Mouthguard sheet temperature after heating

“…Polyolefin exhibits satisfactory physical properties such as lower water absorption and better adhesive strength which is important when laminating the materials in comparison with ethylene vinyl acetate, and is suitable for use as mouthguard material . Recently, it has been reported that mouthguard materials such as ethylene vinyl acetate and polyolefin had high shock absorbing capabilities . However, the change of sheet temperature during heating of polyolefin has not been determined, and the appropriate heating conditions for polyolefin have also not been determined.…”

Novel antibacterial mouthguard material manufactured using silver-nanoparticle–embedded ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer masterbatch

“…Fukasawa et al observed that the load absorbency of 12 commercial MG materials ranged between 26-37% compared with that of the control group; the MIF-t values of the commercial sheets ranged between 0.42-0.62 ms, and that of the control group was 0.39 ms 18) . Our results revealed that the shock absorbency of TAE was not significantly different from that of ERK and other commercial materials that were reported previously by Fukasawa et al 18) .…”

“…A shock absorption test was conducted based on a previously reported method 18) . The specimens were disks of TAE, ERK, and a control (i.e., without material), which were 2 mm in thickness and 50 mm in diameter.…”

“…The free-falling ball impact test is one of the simplest methods used for evaluating the shock absorbent properties of MG materials. In this study, the impact test was conducted under the same conditions as those in a previous study 18) (object, stainless steel ball; diameter, 20 mm; weight, 32.6 g, falling height, 600 mm). Our results of MIF showed that the load absorbency was approximately 37.5% compared with that of the control group (i.e., without material), and the MIF-t values were approximately 1.75-fold larger than those of the control group.…”

“…Moreover, the shock absorbency of TAE could be improved by increasing the thickness of its ERK component. Similar to a previous study 18) , we used a 2-mm-thick testing material, although generally we often use a seat of EVA of 3-4 mm for constructing MGs for patients. Moreover, the shock absorbency of the material could be improved, when the Ag-EVA sheet is thin and the ratio of EVA is increased.…”