Does hard insertion and space improve shock absorption ability of mouthguard?
Authors: Takeda Tomotaka , Ishigami Keiichi , Handa Jun , Naitoh Kaoru , Kurokawa Katsuhide , Shibusawa Mami , Nakajima Kazunori , Kawamura Shintaro 
Published: February 2006

Abstract –  Mouthguards are expected to reduce sports‐related orofacial injuries. Numerous studies have been conduced to improve the shock absorption ability of mouthguards using air cells, sorbothane, metal wire, or hard material insertion. Most of these were shown to be effective; however, the result of each study has not been applied to clinical use. The aim of this study was to develop mouthguards that have sufficient prevention ability and ease of clinical application with focus on a hard insertion and space. Ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguard blank used was Drufosoft and the acrylic resin was Biolon (Dreve‐Dentamid GMBH, Unna, Germany). Three types of mouthguard samples tested were constructed by means of a Dreve Drufomat (Type SO, Dreve‐Dentamid) air pressure machine: the first was a conventional laminated type of EVA mouthguard material; the second was a three layer type with acrylic resin inner layer (hard‐insertion); the third was the same as the second but with space that does not come into contact with tooth surfaces (hard + space). As a control, without any mouthguard condition (NOMG) was measured. A pendulum type impact testing machine with interchangeable impact object (steel ball and baseball) and dental study model (D17FE‐NC.7PS, Nissin, Tokyo, Japan) with the strain gages (KFG‐1‐120‐D171‐11N30C2: Kyowa, Tokyo, Japan) applied to teeth and the accelerometer to the dentition (AS‐A YG‐2768 100G, Kyowa) were used to measure transmitted forces. Statistical analysis (anova, P < 0.01) showed significant differences among four conditions of NOMG and three different mouthguards in both objects and sensor. About acceleration: in a steel ball which was a harder impact object, shock absorption ability of about 40% was shown with conventional EVA and hard‐insertion and about 50% with hard + space. In a baseball that was softer compared with steel ball, a decrease rate is smaller, reduction (EVA = ∼4%, hard‐insertion = ∼12%, hard + space = ∼25%) was admitted in the similar order. A significant difference was found with all the combinations except for between EVA and hard‐insertion with steel ball (Tukey test). About distortion: both buccal and lingual, distortions had become small in order of EVA, hard‐insertion, and hard + space, too. The decrease rate is larger than acceleration, EVA = ∼47%, hard‐insertion = 80% or more, and hard +space = ∼98%, in steel ball. EVA = ∼30%, hard‐insertion =∼75%, and hard + space = ∼98% in baseball. And a significant difference was found with all the combinations (Tukey test). Especially, hard + space has decreased the distortion of teeth up to several percentages. Acceleration of the maxilla and distortions of the tooth became significantly smaller when wearing any type of mouthguard, in both impact objects. But the effect of mouthguard was clearer in the distortion of the tooth and with steel ball. Considering the differences of mouthguards, the hard‐insertion and the hard + space had significantly greater buffer capacity than conventional EVA. Furthermore, hard + space shows quite high shock absorption ability in the tooth distortion. Namely, hard + space has decreased the distortion of teeth up to several percentages in both impact objects.