Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards

Abstract

Up to this moment, there is no guideline regarding the materials to produce mouthguards. The most used is Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA). Studies indicate that laminating EVA sheets with rigid components could increase the protection capacities of the mouthguards whereas other studies suggest that only replacement of the material within it structure can increase energy absorption. The aim of this work is to evaluate the impact response of four different foils when compared to a 4 mm thickness EVA sheet. Five groups of different materials were subjected to impact tests with energies of 1.72 J, 2.85 J and 4.40 J. In this context was considered the following materials: EVA foils (G1), EVA foils with an EVA foam core (G2), EVA foils with an acetate core (G3), Foils of Erkoloc-pro (G4) and Foils of Ortho IBT resin (G5). Comparisons between the materials were made by qualitative analysis of the average energy-time and load-displacement curves, as well as by comparison of the peak load, maximum displacement, contact time and absorbed energy using the Kruskal-Wallis test. It was possible to conclude that statistically significant differences were found in the energy absorbed (p=0.001). Laminated foils with a soft core (G2) are a good option to produce mouthguards, while EVA foils with an acetate core (G3) and foils of Ortho IBT resin (G5) were declared unsuitable.

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

“…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.…”

“…The oral health condition of an individual is a determining factor in their health and consequently in their quality of life. Although physical activity is one factor contributing to an individual's health, it is also true that collision or contact sports, and some recreational activities, can expose individuals to harmful impacts in the orofacial region, with the associated risk of injury [1][2][3]. Reports show that the incidence and prevalence of orofacial lesions tend to increase [4,5], and the majority of those involve the anterior teeth [6].…”

“…The main purpose of this study was to evaluate, through the finite element method, the influence of the material arrangement in a custom-made mouthguard on the stress level of intraoral structures during an impact. The material arrangement included one mouthguard with a layer of soft material, in this case, EVA foam [1], another one considered a space layer between two layers of EVA, and a third model assumed that the mouthguard was produced with a compact EVA layer.…”

The ability of mouthguards to protect veneered teeth: A 3D finite element analysis

“…Additionally, the protective behavior is mainly dependent on its material. Ethylene‐vinyl acetate (EVA) is the most popular material used to manufacture mouthguards due to its formability and handling as a hot‐melt adhesive layer that can be easily used with thermoforming methods to create a custom‐made mouthguard 9,10 …”

“…Ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) is the most popular material used to manufacture mouthguards due to its formability and handling as a hot-melt adhesive layer that can be easily used with thermoforming methods to create a custom-made mouthguard. 9,10 The use and indications of laminate veneers have increased substantially in recent years including their use by athletes or sports practitioners. 8 Veneers are usually indicated to treat damaged teeth that have had previous trauma, teeth with uncomplicated crown fractures 11 or for aesthetic reasons.…”