Effect of the anteroposterior position of the model on fabricated mouthguard thickness: Part 2 Influence of sheet thickness and material

Takahashi, Mutsumi; Bando, Yogetsu

doi:10.1111/edt.12423

Cited by 18 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(102 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mouthguards were fabricated from a sheet of ethylene‐vinyl acetate resin (Sports Mouthguard, 127 × 127 × 4 mm, clear; Keystone Dental Inc.). The working model was a maxillary dental model made of dental gypsum that was trimmed to a height of 25 mm and to 20 mm at the central incisor and first molar . The model was allowed to stand at room temperature for at least 48 hours and was completely dry before use.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The vacuum time was 30 s, and the model was left for 24 hours or more before the mouthguard was removed. Six specimens were formed for each condition, and the same model was used throughout …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sheet thickness after formation was measured with a specialized caliper (21–111, YDM Co.) that can measure up to 1/10 mm . The spring in the caliper was removed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, analysis was performed by one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni's multiple comparison tests. All analytical methods were carried out with a significance level of 5% and a detection power of 80%, and a difference was considered significant when both were satisfied …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The thickness reduction during model formation occurs because the sheet is three‐dimensionally stretched along the model form. That is, if the length of the original sheet is insufficient against the amount of deformation of the sheet (ie, the sum of the distance from the model rim to the sheet frame and the height of the model), the mouthguard thickness will decrease . Therefore, the height of the model and the setting position of the model on the forming unit affect the thickness .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Movement of model position just before vacuum forming to ensure mouthguard thickness: Part 2 Effect of model moving distance

Takahashi

Bando

2019

Dental Traumatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aim Wearing a mouthguard during sports reduces the risk of dental injury via absorbing impact forces, and the effectiveness and safety of the mouthguard are closely linked to the mouthguard material and thickness. The aim of this study was to clarify the suppression effect of the thickness reduction of the mouthguard when changing the moving distance of the model forward in a stepwise manner. Materials and Methods Ethylene‐vinyl acetate sheets of 4.0 mm thick and a vacuum forming machine were used. The working model was placed at a position 40 mm from the front of the forming unit. The sheet was softened until it sagged 15 mm, and the sheet frame was lowered and covered the model. The model was then pushed from the back to move it forward, and the vacuum was switched on. The model was moved 10 (MP‐10), 20 (MP‐20), or 30 mm (MP‐30). The control model was not moved. The thickness after formation was measured with a specialized caliper. Differences in the mouthguard thickness caused by the forming conditions were analyzed by one‐way ANOVA and Bonferroni's multiple comparison tests. Results Significant differences were observed between the control and each MP condition (P < 0.01). Reduction rate of the thickness decreased as the moving distance of the model increased. In particular, the thickness difference depending on the forming conditions was greater at the labial site. The reduction rate of MP‐30 was 33.8 ± 0.8% smaller than that of the control. Conclusion The thickness reduction in mouthguards was mitigated by moving the model forward just before vacuum forming. The reduction was smaller as the moving distance of the model increased. This study suggested that moving the model 20 mm or more forward just before vacuum forming could secure the labial thickness of 3 mm or more.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sheet thickness after formation was measured with a specialized caliper (21–111, YDM Co.) that can measure up to 1/10 mm . The spring in the caliper was removed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Movement of model position just before vacuum forming to ensure mouthguard thickness: Part 2 Effect of model moving distance

Takahashi

Bando

2019

Dental Traumatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The production and materials of mouthguards: Conventional vs additive manufacturing - A systematic review

Dias Gonçalves,

Fontes Vieira,

Colorado Lopera

2024

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thermoforming technique for suppressing reduction in mouthguard thickness: Part 2 Effect of model height and model moving distance

Takahashi

Bando

2020

Dental Traumatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aim Wearing a mouthguard reduces the risk of sports‐related injuries, but the material and thickness of the mouthguard have a substantial impact on its effectiveness and safety. The aim of this study was to establish a thermoforming technique in which the model position is moved just before formation to suppress the reduction in thickness. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of model height and model moving distance on mouthguard thickness. Materials and Methods Ethylene‐vinyl acetate sheets of 4.0 mm thick and a vacuum forming machine were used. Three hard plaster models were trimmed so that the height of the anterior teeth was 25 mm, 30 mm and 35 mm. Model position (MP) was 40 mm from the front of the forming unit. The sheet was softened until it sagged 15 mm, after which the sheet frame was lowered to cover the model. The model was then pushed from behind to move it forward, and the vacuum was switched on. The model was moved at distances of 20 mm, 25 mm or 30 mm whereas a control model was not moved. Thickness after formation was measured with a specialized caliper. Differences in mouthguard thickness due to model height and moving distance were analysed by two‐way ANOVA and Bonferroni's multiple comparison tests. Results Sheet thickness decreased as the model height increased. Each MP condition was significantly thicker than the control in each model. There was no significant difference among MP conditions except for the buccal surface. Conclusions Moving the model forward by 20 mm or more just before formation is useful to secure the labial thickness of the mouthguard. This thermoforming technique increased the thickness by 1.5 times or more compared with the normal forming method, regardless of model height.

show abstract

Effect of the anteroposterior position of the model on fabricated mouthguard thickness: Part 2 Influence of sheet thickness and material

Cited by 18 publications

References 25 publications

Movement of model position just before vacuum forming to ensure mouthguard thickness: Part 2 Effect of model moving distance

Movement of model position just before vacuum forming to ensure mouthguard thickness: Part 2 Effect of model moving distance

The production and materials of mouthguards: Conventional vs additive manufacturing - A systematic review

Thermoforming technique for suppressing reduction in mouthguard thickness: Part 2 Effect of model height and model moving distance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About