Mouthguard use and attitudes regarding dental trauma among elite cross‐country mountain biking and field hockey athletes

Abstract

Background/Aims Cross‐country mountain biking and field hockey are two Olympic sports that pose a potential risk for dentofacial trauma. However, mouthguard use is not mandatory in either of these sports and knowledge about tooth rescue among athletes is often neglected. The aim of this cross‐sectional epidemiological survey was to evaluate the prevalence of sports‐related dentofacial injuries, mouthguard use, and attitudes regarding tooth rescue among cross‐country mountain biking and field hockey athletes participating at pre‐Olympic competitions held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Materials and Methods A convenience sample of 217 athletes from 33 countries participating in cross‐country mountain biking (n = 82; mean age = 30.96 ± 8.52 years) and field hockey (n = 135; mean age = 19.72 ± 2.46 years) pre‐Olympic competitions were examined clinically, and they answered a questionnaire regarding previous history of sports‐related dentofacial injuries, attitudes toward mouthguard use, and tooth rescue. Results There were 120 (55.30%) males and 97 (44.70%) females who participated in the study. The prevalence of facial trauma was higher in mountain biking (54.88%) than in field hockey (26.66%, P < .001). Fracture was the most prevalent facial injury in mountain biking (80%), while laceration was the most prevalent in field hockey (30.55%). Extensive dental injuries occurred more often in mountain biking (47.37%) than in hockey (12.50%). The teeth most often affected were the maxillary central incisors in both mountain biking (57.89%) and field hockey (93.75%). Mouthguard use was more frequent among field hockey athletes (41.48%) than in mountain biking (1.22%, P < .001). The overall knowledge about tooth rescue was low, and most of the athletes in both sports did not know what to do in case of an avulsed tooth. Conclusions Prevalence of dentofacial injuries among XCO‐MTB and field hockey athletes participating at this pre‐Olympic event was high. The majority of the athletes in this study did not use mouthguards and were unaware of recommendations in the case of an avulsed tooth.

Electric scooters, fracture patterns, and the rise of e‐learning platforms

“…The use of mouthguards and knowledge of oral injury management among athletes has been a long-standing topic of interest in sports dentistry. [17][18][19][20][21] It is well established that the use of mouthguards can significantly reduce dental injuries in sports. 22,23 Although football (soccer) is considered a nonviolent sport, it may lead to oral injuries.…”

Prevention of maxillofacial injuries through analysis of mechanisms, patterns, and long‐term sequalae

“…In fact, a general search in PubMed presents over 800 results when looking for the term “sports mouthguard”. Several of these studies have been published within Dental Traumatology 1–14 . The American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association has specified three main types of mouthguards as well as their desired properties such as hardness and impact absorption 15 .…”

“…Several of these studies have been published within Dental Traumatology. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] The American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association has specified three main types of mouthguards as well as their desired properties such as hardness and impact absorption. 15 As oral healthcare providers, patients often approach us for advice on protecting their dentition during contact and non-contact sports.…”