Mouthguard design, pediatric trauma, and reporting guidelines

Sarao, Simran Kaur; Levin, Liran

doi:10.1111/edt.12850

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is crucial to explore the possibility of using different reinforcing materials and new fabrication methodologies for these devices, such as additive manufacturing. In terms of relevant research methods, in silico and in vitro approaches are valuable for evaluating the varying protective capacities among available and developed mouthguards [51][52][53][54].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergonomic Sports Mouthguards: A Narrative Literature Review and Future Perspectives

De Queiroz,

da Cruz,

Demachkia

et al. 2023

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sports activities can increase participants’ risk of orofacial trauma. Therefore, it is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of various types of sports mouthguards. This study aims to present a narrative literature review on ergonomic mouthguards, including their indications for use, classifications, materials, manufacturing methods, and the current status of additive manufacturing in their production. Research of the existing literature was performed in the Google Scholar, MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases to identify the currently available publications on the topic of sports mouthguards from January 1951 to August 2023. The terms used were “sports mouthguard”, “mouthguards and orofacial traumas”, and “mouthguards and additive manufacturing”. A total of 920 articles were found, and 39 articles were selected and included in this review. While consensus exists regarding the significance of using sports mouthguards with optimal attributes, there is a need for standardization in the methodology for manufacturing custom-made mouthguards. These can be fashioned with conventional ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer reinforcements. Such standardization would ensure uniform stress distribution and guarantee ample protection for oral tissues, allowing for universal reproducibility among dental practitioners. Additive manufacturing stands as an innovative method for fabricating mouthguards, displaying promising benefits. However, the materials and methodologies employed in this workflow still require refinement and characterization for a safe clinical integration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ergonomic Sports Mouthguards: A Narrative Literature Review and Future Perspectives

De Queiroz,

da Cruz,

Demachkia

et al. 2023

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…dental, gingival, labial, and mandibular injuries, as well as the risk of concussion during athletic activities. 7,8 However, although several types of mouthguards are currently available on the market, the ones that best protect against orofacial injuries are those custom-made for the athlete by a dentist, made of EVA (ethylene-vinyl acetate), [8][9][10][11] with a thickness of around 4 mm. 12 Although they play an important role in preventing dental trauma, they are still underutilized.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing mouthguard longevity: Impact of surface treatment against aging from brushing and disinfectant exposure

Haddad e Borro,

de Queiroz,

da Cruz

et al. 2024

Dental Traumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/AimsThe study aimed to assess the surface characteristics of sports mouthguards under mechanical stresses during cleaning, either by brushing or immersion in disinfectant solutions.Material and MethodsEthylene‐vinyl acetate samples, 4 mm thick, were randomly assigned to cleaning methods: control (C—no cleaning), brushing with water (B.W), brushing with neutral liquid soap (B.S), brushing with toothpaste (B.T), immersion in distilled water for 10 min (I.W), immersion in 2.25% sodium hypochlorite solution for 10 min (I.SH), and immersion in sodium bicarbonate solution for 5 min (I.SB). All cleaning methods were applied for 28 days. Surface roughness average (Ra) and wettability were measured at baseline for the control group (n = 9), and after cleaning for all the other groups.ResultsOne‐way ANOVA with Tukey tests (5% significance) indicated significant differences among groups (p < .05). The I.SB group had higher surface roughness than B.S and B.T (p < .05). B.W showed the lowest wettability, significantly lower than B.T, I.W, and I.SB (p < .05). I.SB exhibited the highest wettability, significantly different from sodium hypochlorite, neutral liquid soap, brushing with water, and control groups (p < .05). The sodium bicarbonate immersion group (I.SB) demonstrated greater statistical variation, displaying higher susceptibility to aging compared to brushing with neutral liquid soap.ConclusionCleaning mouthguards with a toothbrush, water, and neutral liquid soap emerged as the most promising method, causing minimal surface changes in the material.

show abstract