Mouthguard Biomechanics for Protecting Dental Implants from Impact: Experimental and Finite Element Impact Analysis

Carvalho, Valessa Florindo; Soares, Priscilla Barbosa Ferreira; Veríssimo, Crisnicaw; Pessoa, Roberto Sales e; Versluis, Antheunis; Soares, Carlos José

doi:10.11607/jomi.5803

Cited by 15 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results show that the presence of an MG is associated with a decrease in the stress magnitudes of teeth and maxilla bone but an increase in the soft tissue von Mises stresses. Though the simulated mouthguards had 4 mm of thickness, because some relevant studies described this parameter to be in the range of 3 to 4 mm as an ideal condition [8,[11][12][13]24,28], thinner mouthguards may have different results. Another design parameter that can condition the level of mouth protection is the mouthguard material.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The stresses and stretches over the mouthguard reveal its ability to shock absorption, which depends in the material shock absorption ability. The EVA and the EVA foam materials show good energy absorption capabilities [1,8,9,14,28] and, therefore, all the three mouthguards are well positioned relatively to this parameter. Nevertheless, it was the HMG model that presented higher values of first principal stretches and lower values of third principal stretches, i.e., it shows greater elongation and compression, due to the flexibility of its outer layer, compared to FMG and CMG models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meanwhile, significant experimental research studies have shown that wearing a mouthguard (MG) effectively prevents tooth or maxillofacial trauma [7][8][9]. Finite element models with three-dimensional [8][9][10][11] and bidimensional [6,12] analyses have also emphasized the benefits of wearing mouthguards. Hence, the number and type of mouthguards available nowadays is considerable, especially when compared to those available ten years ago.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effectiveness of Dental Protection and the Material Arrangement in Custom-Made Mouthguards

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental research studies have shown that wearing a mouthguard (MG) is an effective way to prevent tooth or maxillofacial trauma. However, there is a lack of scientific information regarding how the material arrangement within the mouthguard can modify its mechanical response during an impact. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the influence of material arrangement within custom-made mouthguards on stress transmitted to anterior teeth, bone, and soft tissue after impact. Four 3D finite element models of a human maxilla were reconstructed based on the CBCT of a young patient and analyzed according to the presence or absence of a mouthguard and the type of material arrangement within those with a mouthguard: model NMG with no mouthguard; model CMG representing the conventional arrangement with a single 4 mm-thick ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) foil; model FMG presenting layer arrangement with two 1 mm-thick foils of EVA in the outer shell and one 2 mm-thick foil of EVA foam in the core; model HMG presenting a 1 mm-thick compact inner and outer shell of EVA and a 2 mm wide air-filled zone in the core. Linear quasi-static analysis and frontal load were used to simulate an impact with an energy of 4.4 J. Isotropic linear elastic properties were assumed for the bone and teeth but not for the mouthguard protection and oral soft tissues. The results were evaluated and compared in terms of displacement, stretches, and stresses. All the mouthguards analyzed reduced the risk of injury to teeth and bone, reducing the displacement and stress of these structures. However, the implementation of a honeycomb structured layer allowed more significant displacement and deformation of the mouthguard's external layer, thus promoting higher protection of the anatomic structures, namely the root dentin and the bone tissue. Nevertheless, the results also indicate that improving the mouthguard flexibility might increase the soft tissue injuries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effectiveness of Dental Protection and the Material Arrangement in Custom-Made Mouthguards

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…EVA is a thermoplastic copolymer, easily manipulated when heated. Additionally, it is considered non-toxic and easily available in the market [67,68]. This copolymer synthesis is conducted by high-pressure free radical polymerization of ethylene and vinyl acetate (VA) monomers resulting in a random copolymer [69][70][71].…”

Section: Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (Eva) Copolymermentioning

confidence: 99%

Present Status in Polymeric Mouthguards. A Future Area for Additive Manufacturing?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Athletes from contact sports are more prone to orofacial injuries because of the exposure to possible shocks and collisions derived from physical proximity. The use of protector polymeric mouthguards proved to be useful in the prevention of the described injuries. There are different types of mouthguards with varying ranges of protection and prices, but they are all made from polymers and share the same propose: to absorb and dissipate the impact energy resulting from the shocks. As they are used inside the mouth, they should not impair breathing and speaking nor compromise the comfort of the athlete. However, the ideal mouthguard is yet to be created. The choice of the most appropriate polymeric material and the standard required properties have not yet been reported. Regardless of the numerous studies in this field, normalized control parameters for both material characterization and mouthguard fabrication are absent. This paper aims to present a review of the current types of available mouthguards and their properties/characteristics. Moreover, a detailed description of the most common polymers for the fabrication of mouthguards, together with the manufacturing techniques, are discussed.

show abstract

“…Custom‐made mouthguards have some advantages of optimal fit, retention, thickness, and extension plus they are the most comfortable interfering the least with oral function, since they are designed specifically for each patient 8,9 . Custom‐made mouthguards had adequate shore A hardness, which provides capacity to absorb energy generated during an impact 7 . A 4.0‐mm mouthguard thickness has high shock absorption and promotes lower stresses and strains in teeth and adjacent structures during an impact 3,9,10 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of ceramic veneer thickness and antagonist on impact stresses during dental trauma with and without a mouthguard assessed with finite element analysis

Bragança

Vilela

Soares

et al. 2020

Dental Traumatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aim Little is known about the effect of dental trauma and mouthguards (MG) on teeth with ceramic laminate veneers (CLV). The aim was to evaluate the influence of CLV thickness and the presence of a MG with and without antagonist tooth contact on impact stresses during dental trauma. Materials and Methods Twelve 2D‐finite element models of a head with maxillary structures and upper incisors, six with and six without antagonist tooth, were created in three CLV conditions: sound incisor (no CLV), 0.3 mm CLV, and 1.0 mm CLV. These were evaluated with and without a 4.0‐mm ethylene‐vinyl acetate MG, with and without an antagonist tooth. An impact analysis was performed in which the head frontally hits a rigid surface at a speed of 1 m/s (3.6 km/h). The results were analyzed using Critical modified von Mises (MPa). The mean of the 10% highest modified von Mises stresses in each structure was collected. Results MG presence substantially reduced impact stresses in the CLV and tooth structures. The contact of the antagonist tooth promoted better stress distribution and reduced the stress levels in the traumatized tooth. Critical stress areas were found in the palatal enamel, incisal enamel, labial cervical area, and enamel under the CLV for all models without MG. In the models with MG, the stresses reduced significantly. Critical modified von Mises stress showed that sound or prepared enamel experienced more critical impact stresses than 0.3 or 1.0‐mm thick CLV. Conclusions The use of 4.0 mm EVA mouthguard reduced the impact stress levels in models with 0.3‐mm CLV and 1.0‐mm CLV, similar to a sound tooth. The contact of an antagonist tooth and the MG better distributed the stresses and reduced the impact stress in the traumatized tooth.

show abstract

Mouthguard Biomechanics for Protecting Dental Implants from Impact: Experimental and Finite Element Impact Analysis

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

The Effectiveness of Dental Protection and the Material Arrangement in Custom-Made Mouthguards

The Effectiveness of Dental Protection and the Material Arrangement in Custom-Made Mouthguards

Present Status in Polymeric Mouthguards. A Future Area for Additive Manufacturing?

Influence of ceramic veneer thickness and antagonist on impact stresses during dental trauma with and without a mouthguard assessed with finite element analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About