Mouthguard use may reduce dentofacial injuries in field hockey players

Abstract

Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, OvidSP, Web of Science, Cochrane and CINAHL databases were searched up to February 2015 with no language restrictions.Study selectionTwo review authors independently assessed tiles and abstracts of the retrieved case-control, cohorts and cross-sectional studies. For the studies to have been included in the meta-analysis, they must have included the total number of hockey players reporting at least one dentofacial injury, the total number of these injuries compared with other types of injuries and quantitative data on characteristics of dentofacial injuries. Recreational and competitive elite level were included.Data extraction and synthesisThe included studies fell into three categories, related to dentofacial injury, mouthguard use or both, and their quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A random effects model was used to calculate the overall effect size when appropriate; if not, then pooled prevalence was reported. Binary variables were used in order to express the results as Mantel-Haenszel pooled prevalence odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a p-value of the overall effect. To compare the between-studies differences, a χ test was used. The heterogeneity across the studies was evaluated using the I.ResultsEleven studies were included: six related to dentofacial injury, one related to mouthguard use and four to both. The numbers of field hockey players who presented at least one dentofacial injury was 12.7% (95% CI 8.5% to 17.0%) and 45.2% (95% CI 39.3% to 51.0%) in junior/senior players and elite players, respectively. There were no significant differences with respect to sex. After 2000, 84.5% (95% CI 69.3% to 99.7%) of players regularly wore mouthguards, whereas only 31.4% (95% CI 22.7% to 40.1%) wore mouthguards previous to 2000. The mouthguards were commonly depicted as unnecessary and uncomfortable by players.ConclusionsDentofacial trauma poses a serious problem in field hockey, but a considerable number of players still do not regularly wear mouthguards. The likelihood is that if mouthguard usage were higher, fewer dentofacial injuries would occur during field hockey games and in training.Source of fundingNone declared.

Simulation of mouthguard use in preventing dental injuries caused by different impacts in sports activities

“…Thus, it is correct to assume that fracture cases [17] 3.6 0.30 Human bone tissue [18] 13.7 0.3 Human teeth [19] 2.07 × 10 4 0.3 could present worse prognosis if the athlete was not using a mouthguard [3,8,[21][22][23]. It is hoped that doubts by athletes about the benefits of using a mouthguard diminish with this information, since this is one of the main reasons reported for this apparatus not being used during sports practice [20,24]. Fig.…”

The use of mouthguards and prevalence of dento‐alveolar trauma among athletes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Contact sports are those in which participants establish direct physical contact with other players or objects, resulting in greater likelihood of trauma and injuries . Dento‐alveolar injuries such as tooth avulsion, fracture, subluxation, and intrusion demonstrate a significant prevalence in recent studies . It is recommended that contact sports athletes (from football, volleyball, basketball, handball, hockey, rugby, martial arts, and others) use safety devices, such as mouthguards, to minimize impacts …”

Oral injuries related to Ice Hockey in the province of Alberta, Canada: Trends over the last 15 years

“…With regard to oral injuries, the severity of which has decreased dramatically with the introduction of face cages and mouthguards . Most oral injuries only result in around 1 week or less of lost playing time.…”

“…8,12 With regard to oral injuries, the severity of which has decreased dramatically with the introduction of face cages and mouthguards. [14][15][16] Most oral injuries only result in around 1 week or less of lost playing time. This indicates that the acute clinical severity is low; access to treatment is quick and effective, or an intersection of both.…”