LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER
Dental Residency Program
Literature Review Form
Resident: Boboia Date: 12/4/09
Article title: Guideline on Oral and Dental Aspects of Child Abuse and Neglect
Author(s):
Journal: Pediatric Dentistry Reference Manual
Volume #; Number; Page #s): 28:7
Year: 2007
Purpose Review the oral and dental aspects of physical/sexual abuse and dental neglect and the role of physicians and dentists in evaluating such conditions.
Abstract
In all 50 states, physicians and dentists are required to report cases of abuse and neglect to law enforcement agencies. This report addresses: bite marks, perioral and introral injuries, infections, and disease suspicious for child abuse or neglect. Physicians recieve minimal training in oral health and dental injury and may therefore not detect certain aspects of abuse as readily as they do on other parts of the body.
Physical Abuse:
Craniofacial, head, face, and neck injuries occur in more then half of the cases of child abuse. Signs of neglect (caries, gingivitis, and other oral health problems) should also be reported. Some authorities believe the oral cavity may be a central focus for physical abuse because of its significance in communication and nutrition. Injuries may be inflicted with instruments such as eating utensils, bottle (during force feeding), hands, fingers, scalding liquids, or caustic substances. Contusions, burns, oral lacerations, fractured / displaced teeth, and facial bones / jaw fractures are all common findings among abuse cases. One study showed the lips were the most common site (54%) for inflicted injuries (followed by the oral mucosa, teeth, gingiva, and tongue). Unintentional or accidental injuries to the mouth must be distinguished from abuse by using the history, timing, and mechanism of injury (as well as the child’s developmental capabilities and characteristics of the injury).
Sexual Abuse:
Oral-genital contact suspicion necessitates a referral to a specialized clinic equipped to conduct a comprehensive examination. Oral / perioral gonorrhea in prepubertal children is pathognomonic for sexual abuse but rare among prepubertal girls evaluated for sexual abuse. Pharyngeal gonorrhea is usually asymptomatic. HPV is a little tricky when attempting to determine a mode of transmission to the oral region. Vertical and horizontal modes of transmission through non-sexual contact does occur.
Bite Marks:
Should be suspected when ecchymoses, abrasions, or lacerations are found in an elliptical or ovoid pattern. Animal bites tear flesh and human bites compress flesh (rarely causing tissue avulsion). Photographs should be taken where the angle of the camera lens is directly over the bite and perpendicular to the plane of the bite to avoid distortion. Swabbing the bite for DNA and taking a PVS impression of it are also very helpful forensic tools. Photographs and documentation should be repeated for at least 3 days to document the evolution of the bite. Involvement of a forensic odontologist or pathologist to evaluate and document the bite pattern is appropriate.
Dental Neglect:
Def: “willful failure of a parent or guardian to seek and follow through with treatment necessary to ensure a level of oral health essential for adequate function and freedom from pain and infection”. “The point at which to consider a parent negligent and to begin intervention occurs after the parent has been properly alerted by a health care professional about the nature and extent of the child’s condition, the specific treatment needed, and the mechanism of accessing the treatment”.
Conclusions:
The Prevent Abuse and Neglect Through Dental Awareness phone # is (501) 661-2595 or email Lmouden@healthyarkansas.com
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Microabrasion
Resident’s Name: Joanne Lewis Date: November 20, 2009
Article title: Microabrasion: effect of time, number of applications, and pressure on enamel loss
Author(s): Daniel P. Dalzell, DDS, MS, et al
Journal: Pediatric Dentistry
Volume (number): 17(3)
Month, Year: 1995
Major topic: microabrasion
Type of Article: scientific article
Main Purpose: To evaluate the effect that time, number of applications, and pressure has on the amount of enamel loss seen in micoabrasion using hydrochloric acid and pumice.
Overview of method of research: 27 extracted premolars with no visible signs of decalcification, fluorosis, or any other defect were used in the investigation. The teeth were hand rubbed with an 18% HCL-pumice mixture at time intervals of 5, 10, and 20 sec and 5, 10, and 15 applications under pressures of 10, 20, and 30g. Longitudinal sections were cut from the treated sections and measured for enamel loss.
Findings: Enamel loss significantly increased as each variable increased. The combination of 10 ten-sec applications or 15 five-sec applications with 20g of pressure resulted in enamel loss of slightly less than 250 mm.
Key points/Summary: When using this procedure, keep the applications below 10 ten-sec applications or 15 five-sec applications.
Assessment of article: I have never used this procedure – anyone else?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Bleaching Primary Teeth with 10% Carbamide Peroxide
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Lutheran Medical Center
Date: 11/20/2009
Article title: Bleaching primary teeth with 10% carbamide peroxide
Author(s): Brantley, Barnes, Haywood
Journal: Pediatric Dentistry
Volume (number): 23:6
Month, Year: 2001
Major topic: Bleaching
Minor topics: Primary tooth trauma
Type of Article: case report
Main Purpose: Review of a case in which primary teeth were bleached.
Overview of method of research: case report
Findings:
Primary teeth can be safely bleached
Key points/Summary :
Parents requested treatment to lighten anterior teeth in their 4 year old daughter after a trauma caused darkening of the teeth.
A custom suckdown beaching tray was fabricated.
10% carbamide peroxide was used
10% carbamide peroxide is also used in infants for throat infections and is thought to be safe for ingestion.
There were no radiographic abnormalities in the injured teeth.
The teach were bleached for 1 hour a day for 2 weeks and produced some whitening, but not significantly.
After the 2 week period, the parents began having the child sleep with the tray in every 3rd night. for 2 more weeks . (total wear time 47 hours)
The teeth brightened to a satisfactory level after the 4 week period.
The teeth exfoliated normally and there were no noted side effects.
Assessment of article: I’m definitely going to try this in the clinic. I’ve had parents complain about dark teeth post trauma and this seems harmless. I’ve also had parents request bleaching for their kids with naturally ugly teeth. I think some people will find this ridiculous.
Fabricating a better mouthguard. Part II: The effect of color on adaptation and fit
Resident: Adam J. Bottrill
Date: 20NOV09
Region: Providence
Article title: Fabricating a better mouthguard. Part II: The effect of color on adaptation and fit.
Author(s): Del Rossi et al
Journal: Dental Traumatology
Volume #; Page #s: 24, pp. 197-200
Year: 2008
Major topic: Mouthguard adaptation and fit
Minor topic(s): NA
Type of Article: Statistical analysis of the effect of mouthguard color on fit and adaptation.
Main Purpose: The purpose of this study was to establish if material color affected the adaptation and fit of custom-made mouthguards.
Overview of method of research:
A. Manually-driven, vertically oriented strain gauge apparatus fabricated in order to measure the level of adaptation. Used to measure the amount of force needed to remove the mouthguard from the corresponding model. Block of wood at base was placed either at 0 or 45 degrees angulation.
B. 12 individuals used for stone model fabrication. Each model was tested 3 times at both different angles. The 45 degree angle was chosen to best-mimic the angle of actual removal.
C. ANOVA and t-test used in analysis.
Key points in the article discussion:
A. General
1. Knowing that mouthguards are formed using a thermoforming process, it seems logical that the fit of the mouthguard would be effected by the material’s ability to absorb heat.
2. Pressure-formed is preferred of vacuum formed (also uses higher heat in the process).
3. Color may influence ability of material to absorb and attain the proper heat for best fit.
B. Results
1. Significant difference between force required to remove the clear and dark-colored mouthguards.
2. No significant difference between “similarly-colored” mouthguards.
C. Discussion
1. Mouthguards must fit properly and firmly (imagine that).
2. Ability of the material to fit the model is a function of the pliability of the material, which in turn is a function of the material’s ability to absorb heat and internal temperature.
a. it seems expected that dark-colored mouthguards would be able to absorb the most heat and possibly form a tighter fit to the model.
b. clear colored mouthguards showed least suitable fit of all the colors tested.
3. Applies to us as dentists when considering which color mouthguard to fabricate for a patient.
4. Because comfort seems to play a role in pt compliance, a better fitting mouthguard may increase compliance.
5. Note: pulling the mouthguard at a 45 degree angle ALSO reduced the force needed to remove the mouthguard from the model.
6. Limitations:
a. all mouthguards made from same vendor
b. not ALL colors tested
c. did not test a variation in heating temperature or times.
7. The findings of this study SUGGEST that, all else being equal, dark-colored sheets of Ethylene Vinyl Acetate. achieve superior adaptation during the fabrication process. when compared to light-colored or transparent material. This increased firmness and retention may also increase user compliance and decrease the chances of displacement.
Assessment of article: Great conclusions but very limited in scope (see “limitations”). Serious potential for shenanigans, but useful none-the-less.
Date: 20NOV09
Region: Providence
Article title: Fabricating a better mouthguard. Part II: The effect of color on adaptation and fit.
Author(s): Del Rossi et al
Journal: Dental Traumatology
Volume #; Page #s: 24, pp. 197-200
Year: 2008
Major topic: Mouthguard adaptation and fit
Minor topic(s): NA
Type of Article: Statistical analysis of the effect of mouthguard color on fit and adaptation.
Main Purpose: The purpose of this study was to establish if material color affected the adaptation and fit of custom-made mouthguards.
Overview of method of research:
A. Manually-driven, vertically oriented strain gauge apparatus fabricated in order to measure the level of adaptation. Used to measure the amount of force needed to remove the mouthguard from the corresponding model. Block of wood at base was placed either at 0 or 45 degrees angulation.
B. 12 individuals used for stone model fabrication. Each model was tested 3 times at both different angles. The 45 degree angle was chosen to best-mimic the angle of actual removal.
C. ANOVA and t-test used in analysis.
Key points in the article discussion:
A. General
1. Knowing that mouthguards are formed using a thermoforming process, it seems logical that the fit of the mouthguard would be effected by the material’s ability to absorb heat.
2. Pressure-formed is preferred of vacuum formed (also uses higher heat in the process).
3. Color may influence ability of material to absorb and attain the proper heat for best fit.
B. Results
1. Significant difference between force required to remove the clear and dark-colored mouthguards.
2. No significant difference between “similarly-colored” mouthguards.
C. Discussion
1. Mouthguards must fit properly and firmly (imagine that).
2. Ability of the material to fit the model is a function of the pliability of the material, which in turn is a function of the material’s ability to absorb heat and internal temperature.
a. it seems expected that dark-colored mouthguards would be able to absorb the most heat and possibly form a tighter fit to the model.
b. clear colored mouthguards showed least suitable fit of all the colors tested.
3. Applies to us as dentists when considering which color mouthguard to fabricate for a patient.
4. Because comfort seems to play a role in pt compliance, a better fitting mouthguard may increase compliance.
5. Note: pulling the mouthguard at a 45 degree angle ALSO reduced the force needed to remove the mouthguard from the model.
6. Limitations:
a. all mouthguards made from same vendor
b. not ALL colors tested
c. did not test a variation in heating temperature or times.
7. The findings of this study SUGGEST that, all else being equal, dark-colored sheets of Ethylene Vinyl Acetate. achieve superior adaptation during the fabrication process. when compared to light-colored or transparent material. This increased firmness and retention may also increase user compliance and decrease the chances of displacement.
Assessment of article: Great conclusions but very limited in scope (see “limitations”). Serious potential for shenanigans, but useful none-the-less.
Effectiveness and Safety of Tooth Bleaching in Teenagers
Resident’s Name: Brian Schmid DMD Date: 11/20/09
Article title: Effectiveness and Safety of Tooth Bleaching in Teenagers
Author(s): Kevin J. Donly DDS, MS et al.
Journal: Pediatric Dentistry
Month, Year: 2005
Major topic: Bleaching in teens
Type of Article: Clinical Trial
Findings: Fifty seven 12-17 year olds were given either Crest White Strips (45) or peroxide gel (12) and bleaching trays to use for one week according to each products directions. Yellowness, lightness and redness were measured electronically, while clinical approval and complaints from the patients were recorded. 27% of the strip group brought complaints, while 42% of the tray group complained. Tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation were the most common complaints. None of the complaints were rated above mild and there was no significant difference in patient happiness with the results. Electronic results of tooth whitening also showed no differences.
Key points/Summary: In this case, the white strips performed as well as overnight trays with fewer complaints.
Assessment of article: Very supportive of Crest, perhaps because it was sponsored by Procter & Gamble.
Article title: Effectiveness and Safety of Tooth Bleaching in Teenagers
Author(s): Kevin J. Donly DDS, MS et al.
Journal: Pediatric Dentistry
Month, Year: 2005
Major topic: Bleaching in teens
Type of Article: Clinical Trial
Findings: Fifty seven 12-17 year olds were given either Crest White Strips (45) or peroxide gel (12) and bleaching trays to use for one week according to each products directions. Yellowness, lightness and redness were measured electronically, while clinical approval and complaints from the patients were recorded. 27% of the strip group brought complaints, while 42% of the tray group complained. Tooth sensitivity and gingival irritation were the most common complaints. None of the complaints were rated above mild and there was no significant difference in patient happiness with the results. Electronic results of tooth whitening also showed no differences.
Key points/Summary: In this case, the white strips performed as well as overnight trays with fewer complaints.
Assessment of article: Very supportive of Crest, perhaps because it was sponsored by Procter & Gamble.
Policy on Dental Bleaching for Children and Adolescent Patients 11/20/09
LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER
Dental Residency Program
Literature Review Form
Resident: Murphy Date: 11/20/09 Region: Prov.
Article title: Policy on Dental Bleaching for Children and Adolescent Patients
Author(s): AAPD Council on Clinical Affairs
Journal: Pediatric Dentistry Reference Manual
Volume #; Number; Page #s): vol 31, no. 6. 51-53
Year: 2009
Major topic: The AAPD’s policy on tooth whitening
Minor topic(s):
Type of Article: review of policy
Findings: This policy put forth by the AAPD was compiled from a review of the current dental and medical literature related to dental bleaching. Now more than ever, both parents and children are wanting to have their teeth whitened. Clinical indications for whitening include 1) discoloration from trauma/infection2) enamel irregularities from trauma/infection3)Intrinsic staining (fluorosis, tetracycline)4) Negative self image Due to the difference in enamel thickness between primary and adult teeth, shades of teeth in the same arch may vary in the mixed dentition. The AAPD advocates bleaching via either in office or at home systems. The in office modality is considered better for numerous reasons. Including the patient getting a professional exam, professional control of the material, compliance, rapid results, and stability of results. Pretreatment assessment is imperative to ascertain the cause of the dental anomaly. Also, it identifies any existing restorations that will not be affected by the bleaching. Professional systems range from 10-38% carbamide peroxide. Home systems use lower concentrations. To bleach non-vital teeth, a mixture of sodium perborate and water can be used(no concentration given). Most common side effects of bleaching are teeth sensitivity, affecting 8-66% of people, and tissue irritation. Both effects are temporary and cease with the discontinuation of treatment. An internal bleaching complication is external root resobrtion. An additional side effect is increased marginal leakage on existing restorations. Use of the lowest possible concentrations is recommended due to a by product produced by the interaction of carbamide peroxide and hydrogen peroxide(a free radical that can damage periodontal tissue and cause root resorbtion).
Summary of conclusions: The AAPD’s stance is as follows1. The use of bleaching vital and no vital teeth is acceptable2. Patients should consult with their dentist to determine the proper bleaching treatment regime for them in addition to an overall treatment plan.3. Dentists and consumers should always consider the possible side effects of bleaching.4. Further research is needed on whitening agents and children5. The AAPD DISCOUSRAGES full arch cosmetic bleaching for patients in the mixed dentition.
Assessment of article: Good policy to know. Quick and to the point. Me Gusta.
Dental Residency Program
Literature Review Form
Resident: Murphy Date: 11/20/09 Region: Prov.
Article title: Policy on Dental Bleaching for Children and Adolescent Patients
Author(s): AAPD Council on Clinical Affairs
Journal: Pediatric Dentistry Reference Manual
Volume #; Number; Page #s): vol 31, no. 6. 51-53
Year: 2009
Major topic: The AAPD’s policy on tooth whitening
Minor topic(s):
Type of Article: review of policy
Findings: This policy put forth by the AAPD was compiled from a review of the current dental and medical literature related to dental bleaching. Now more than ever, both parents and children are wanting to have their teeth whitened. Clinical indications for whitening include 1) discoloration from trauma/infection2) enamel irregularities from trauma/infection3)Intrinsic staining (fluorosis, tetracycline)4) Negative self image Due to the difference in enamel thickness between primary and adult teeth, shades of teeth in the same arch may vary in the mixed dentition. The AAPD advocates bleaching via either in office or at home systems. The in office modality is considered better for numerous reasons. Including the patient getting a professional exam, professional control of the material, compliance, rapid results, and stability of results. Pretreatment assessment is imperative to ascertain the cause of the dental anomaly. Also, it identifies any existing restorations that will not be affected by the bleaching. Professional systems range from 10-38% carbamide peroxide. Home systems use lower concentrations. To bleach non-vital teeth, a mixture of sodium perborate and water can be used(no concentration given). Most common side effects of bleaching are teeth sensitivity, affecting 8-66% of people, and tissue irritation. Both effects are temporary and cease with the discontinuation of treatment. An internal bleaching complication is external root resobrtion. An additional side effect is increased marginal leakage on existing restorations. Use of the lowest possible concentrations is recommended due to a by product produced by the interaction of carbamide peroxide and hydrogen peroxide(a free radical that can damage periodontal tissue and cause root resorbtion).
Summary of conclusions: The AAPD’s stance is as follows1. The use of bleaching vital and no vital teeth is acceptable2. Patients should consult with their dentist to determine the proper bleaching treatment regime for them in addition to an overall treatment plan.3. Dentists and consumers should always consider the possible side effects of bleaching.4. Further research is needed on whitening agents and children5. The AAPD DISCOUSRAGES full arch cosmetic bleaching for patients in the mixed dentition.
Assessment of article: Good policy to know. Quick and to the point. Me Gusta.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tooth Whitening in Children and Adolescents: A Literature Review
Dan Boboia
Article Review 10/2/09
Title: Tooth Whitening in Children and Adolescents: A Literature Review
Author: Lee et al.
Pediatric Dentistry: 27:5, 2005
Major Topic / Purpose: To summarize the findings of a lit. review on the use of peroxide-based tooth whitening agents in children and adolescents
Primary Teeth Whitening:
· Rarely done in children younger then 6
· In a 2004 study 32% of 2,495 children were dissatisfied with their tooth color. No evidence / studies state that bleaching is unsafe to use in children.
· Studies do of course indicate that dose, frequency, and duration of bleaching play a vital role in the safety of this material. Peroxide overuse could certainly have harmful effects in both adult and pediatric patient groups.
· All recommendations for whitening safety on pediatric patients are based off adult studies.
· Most safety data comes from short-term clinical observations.
· Increased sensitivity would be expected due to primary tooth characteristics (thinner enamel / large pulp chambers). This however was not consistent with the limited data available.
Whitening Safety Considerations:
· One study showed that dentin demineralization can occur from bleaching products; however the remineralizing effect of saliva reversed this process. Another study did not demonstrate this demineralizing effect.
· Another study stated that “overoxidation” and tooth structure break down could occur
· With low doses, proper exposure frequency, and short duration, tooth bleaching may not damage the enamel surface of the primary, mixed, or permanent dentition in children.
Carcinogenicity:
· Inadequate evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of hydrogen peroxide in humans
· Existing evidence does not support the concern of carcinogenicity of hydrogen peroxide
Suggested Approaches to Pediatric Whitening:
· Study shows younger children more critical of anterior tooth shade the older children
· So far there is no commonly accepted approach for whitening
· Due to compliance issue, at-home whitening discouraged until patient is 15 y/o
· Lower concentrations with higher frequency advised
· Custom trays with 10% carbamide peroxide is advised for adolescents who use at-home system
Considerations to take into account before bleaching:
1. dry mouth
2. resp. disorders
3. asthma mouth breathing
4. unrestored tooth decay
5. exposed root surfaces
6. broken teeth
7. grinding
8. poor OH
Reminders for Parents:
· Sensitivity is likely, especially if high concentration bleach is used
· Realistic whitening expectations
· A “slowing-down effect” occurs with higher frequency in any patient population
· Whitening tooth pastes can be used to maintain effects
· Do not use high concentration as effects on pulp have not been well determined
· Fluoride treatment after whitening can be use to promote remineralization
Assessment:
Great review. Great reference article for discussions with parents asking for this.
Article Review 10/2/09
Title: Tooth Whitening in Children and Adolescents: A Literature Review
Author: Lee et al.
Pediatric Dentistry: 27:5, 2005
Major Topic / Purpose: To summarize the findings of a lit. review on the use of peroxide-based tooth whitening agents in children and adolescents
Primary Teeth Whitening:
· Rarely done in children younger then 6
· In a 2004 study 32% of 2,495 children were dissatisfied with their tooth color. No evidence / studies state that bleaching is unsafe to use in children.
· Studies do of course indicate that dose, frequency, and duration of bleaching play a vital role in the safety of this material. Peroxide overuse could certainly have harmful effects in both adult and pediatric patient groups.
· All recommendations for whitening safety on pediatric patients are based off adult studies.
· Most safety data comes from short-term clinical observations.
· Increased sensitivity would be expected due to primary tooth characteristics (thinner enamel / large pulp chambers). This however was not consistent with the limited data available.
Whitening Safety Considerations:
· One study showed that dentin demineralization can occur from bleaching products; however the remineralizing effect of saliva reversed this process. Another study did not demonstrate this demineralizing effect.
· Another study stated that “overoxidation” and tooth structure break down could occur
· With low doses, proper exposure frequency, and short duration, tooth bleaching may not damage the enamel surface of the primary, mixed, or permanent dentition in children.
Carcinogenicity:
· Inadequate evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of hydrogen peroxide in humans
· Existing evidence does not support the concern of carcinogenicity of hydrogen peroxide
Suggested Approaches to Pediatric Whitening:
· Study shows younger children more critical of anterior tooth shade the older children
· So far there is no commonly accepted approach for whitening
· Due to compliance issue, at-home whitening discouraged until patient is 15 y/o
· Lower concentrations with higher frequency advised
· Custom trays with 10% carbamide peroxide is advised for adolescents who use at-home system
Considerations to take into account before bleaching:
1. dry mouth
2. resp. disorders
3. asthma mouth breathing
4. unrestored tooth decay
5. exposed root surfaces
6. broken teeth
7. grinding
8. poor OH
Reminders for Parents:
· Sensitivity is likely, especially if high concentration bleach is used
· Realistic whitening expectations
· A “slowing-down effect” occurs with higher frequency in any patient population
· Whitening tooth pastes can be used to maintain effects
· Do not use high concentration as effects on pulp have not been well determined
· Fluoride treatment after whitening can be use to promote remineralization
Assessment:
Great review. Great reference article for discussions with parents asking for this.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Comparing comfort and wearability between Type 3 single layered and double layered EVA mouthgaurds
Resident: R oberts
Article title: Comparing comfort and wearability between TypeIII single-layered and double-layered EVA mouthgaurds
Author: Kenyon, Brian et al
Journal: General Dentistry
Volume: July-August
Year: 2005
Pages: 261 – 264
Findings:
Twenty two dental students from University of Pacific, School of Dentistry participated in a study to determine patient preference between single layered or double layered custom mouthgaurds. The students were involved playing basketball in a recreational league a few times a week. Half of the players used the single layered mouthgaurd for the first two weeks while the other half wore the double layered mouthgaurd. Then the switched to the other mouthgaurd type for another two weeks. A survey was then compiled and given to each of the student athletes. Results were as follows:
The double – layered mouthgaurd performed as well or better in fourteen out of seventeen categories than did the single layered mouthgaurd in areas of wearability, comfort, fit and patient preference; however some patients may object due to the thickness of the mouthgaurd which tends to have a negative impact on breathing, speaking and physical appearance of the athlete.
Assessment: This article was very readable. I liked that!
Article title: Comparing comfort and wearability between TypeIII single-layered and double-layered EVA mouthgaurds
Author: Kenyon, Brian et al
Journal: General Dentistry
Volume: July-August
Year: 2005
Pages: 261 – 264
Findings:
Twenty two dental students from University of Pacific, School of Dentistry participated in a study to determine patient preference between single layered or double layered custom mouthgaurds. The students were involved playing basketball in a recreational league a few times a week. Half of the players used the single layered mouthgaurd for the first two weeks while the other half wore the double layered mouthgaurd. Then the switched to the other mouthgaurd type for another two weeks. A survey was then compiled and given to each of the student athletes. Results were as follows:
The double – layered mouthgaurd performed as well or better in fourteen out of seventeen categories than did the single layered mouthgaurd in areas of wearability, comfort, fit and patient preference; however some patients may object due to the thickness of the mouthgaurd which tends to have a negative impact on breathing, speaking and physical appearance of the athlete.
Assessment: This article was very readable. I liked that!
Properly Fitted Custom-Made Mouthguards 11/20/2009
Resident: Hencler
Date: 11/20/2009
Article title: Properly Fitted Custom-Made Mouthguards
Author(s): Howard H Chi, DMD, MA
Journal: Compendium- January 2007; 28(1): 36-41
Major topic: Mouthguard (MG) fabrication
Type of Article: Review/Instructional
Main Purpose:
1. Explain the importance of custom made MG use in amateur and professional sports
2. Discuss advantages and disadvantages of the 3 types of MGs
3. Describe the steps required to fabricate a custom-made MG
Background:
According to The National Youth Sports Safety Foundation, there are about 15 million dental injuries and 5 million avulsed teeth with 13% t0 39% of those injuries related to sporting activities in the US annually. A properly fitted MG has been shown to provide protection against orofacial injuries and trauma to the teeth and supporting tissues such as the lips, cheeks, and tongue. MG can also provide protection of the mandible, TMJ, neck, and also prevent concussions. Reasons athletes do not like to wear a MG include difficulty with breathing and speaking as well as ill fit. Special considerations are needed for MGs for athletes in the mixed dentition and orthodontic treatment. Space must be incorporated into the MG for tooth movement and growth of arches. For the orthodontic athlete with brackets rope wax can be used before an impression or brackets can be blocked out on the model with stone. The 3 type of MGs are:
1. Type I Stock
2. Type II Mouth-formed
3. Type III Custom-fabricated
Key points in the article discussion:
Preferred material for MGs is ethylene vinyl acetate with a shore hardness of 80. For class I and II a maxillary MG should be made and for class III a mandibular MG. A MG should meet the following criteria:
1. Minimal labial thickness: 3mm
2. Minimal palatal thickness: 2mm
3. Minimal occlusal thickness: 3mm
4. Extensions into the vestibular borders
The 4 stages of MG fabrication are impression and model, fabrication, trimming, and delivery.
Summary of conclusions:
1. Impression with custom tray and polyvinyl material is best to catch all anatomy and vestibular regions. Use microstone golden ADA type III to pour cast. Trim to vestibular border removing the palatal area. Allow cat to dry.
2. MG material is heated on vacuum machine until it droops 1 inch at which time suck-down vacuum is turned on for 1 minute to ensure proper adaptation to cast. Allow to cool.
3. Trim with utility scissors then trim borders to vestibular borders allowing relief for frenum attachments. Lingually the MG should extend minimally 1mm from the teeth and the distal extension should cover the 1st molar. Feather margins of MG for comfort. Place MG back on cast and an alcohol torch is used lightly for a final finish.
4. When delivering check relief of frenum attachments and adequate extension of MG margins into vestibule. Lightly warm posterior of MG. Have patient bite lightly until all tetth are in occlusion
MG care instructions:
· Rinse with water before use
· Wash after each use to prevent build up of saliva, bacteria, and debris
· Hot water will distort MG
· Toothpaste with soft bristle brush to clean
· Store MG in protective plastic case
· Periodic check MG is recommended
MG should be usable for 2 seasons
Assessment of article:
Great step by step instruction on MG fabrication
Date: 11/20/2009
Article title: Properly Fitted Custom-Made Mouthguards
Author(s): Howard H Chi, DMD, MA
Journal: Compendium- January 2007; 28(1): 36-41
Major topic: Mouthguard (MG) fabrication
Type of Article: Review/Instructional
Main Purpose:
1. Explain the importance of custom made MG use in amateur and professional sports
2. Discuss advantages and disadvantages of the 3 types of MGs
3. Describe the steps required to fabricate a custom-made MG
Background:
According to The National Youth Sports Safety Foundation, there are about 15 million dental injuries and 5 million avulsed teeth with 13% t0 39% of those injuries related to sporting activities in the US annually. A properly fitted MG has been shown to provide protection against orofacial injuries and trauma to the teeth and supporting tissues such as the lips, cheeks, and tongue. MG can also provide protection of the mandible, TMJ, neck, and also prevent concussions. Reasons athletes do not like to wear a MG include difficulty with breathing and speaking as well as ill fit. Special considerations are needed for MGs for athletes in the mixed dentition and orthodontic treatment. Space must be incorporated into the MG for tooth movement and growth of arches. For the orthodontic athlete with brackets rope wax can be used before an impression or brackets can be blocked out on the model with stone. The 3 type of MGs are:
1. Type I Stock
2. Type II Mouth-formed
3. Type III Custom-fabricated
Key points in the article discussion:
Preferred material for MGs is ethylene vinyl acetate with a shore hardness of 80. For class I and II a maxillary MG should be made and for class III a mandibular MG. A MG should meet the following criteria:
1. Minimal labial thickness: 3mm
2. Minimal palatal thickness: 2mm
3. Minimal occlusal thickness: 3mm
4. Extensions into the vestibular borders
The 4 stages of MG fabrication are impression and model, fabrication, trimming, and delivery.
Summary of conclusions:
1. Impression with custom tray and polyvinyl material is best to catch all anatomy and vestibular regions. Use microstone golden ADA type III to pour cast. Trim to vestibular border removing the palatal area. Allow cat to dry.
2. MG material is heated on vacuum machine until it droops 1 inch at which time suck-down vacuum is turned on for 1 minute to ensure proper adaptation to cast. Allow to cool.
3. Trim with utility scissors then trim borders to vestibular borders allowing relief for frenum attachments. Lingually the MG should extend minimally 1mm from the teeth and the distal extension should cover the 1st molar. Feather margins of MG for comfort. Place MG back on cast and an alcohol torch is used lightly for a final finish.
4. When delivering check relief of frenum attachments and adequate extension of MG margins into vestibule. Lightly warm posterior of MG. Have patient bite lightly until all tetth are in occlusion
MG care instructions:
· Rinse with water before use
· Wash after each use to prevent build up of saliva, bacteria, and debris
· Hot water will distort MG
· Toothpaste with soft bristle brush to clean
· Store MG in protective plastic case
· Periodic check MG is recommended
MG should be usable for 2 seasons
Assessment of article:
Great step by step instruction on MG fabrication
Friday, November 13, 2009
Mouthguards
Resident’s Name: Joanne Lewis Date: November 13, 2009
Article title: Wearability and physiological effects of custom-fitted vs. self-adapted mouthguards
Author(s): Viera, D. et al
Journal: Dental Traumatology
Volume (number): 24
Month, Year: 2008
Major topic: mouthguards
Type of Article: research
Main Purpose: to measure the comfort, wearability, physiological effects and its influence on athletes’ physical performance, of custom-fitted compared with self-adapted mouthguards.
Overview of method of research: 11 rugby players, all males between 21 and 23 years of age with similar training levels, were selected to participate in the study. Each player received a “boil-and-bite” self-adapted mouthguard (MG2) and a custom fitted mouthguard (MG3). Each player made a weekly effort test randomly using either MG2, MG3, or no mouthguard for 3 consecutive weeks. The performance test was evaluated using counter-movement jumps (CMJ) and rebound jumps (RB). Forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory air volume at 1 s (FEV1), peak expiratory flow rates (PEF), FEV1/FVC, and mid-expiratory flow (MEF) were recorded. The players completed a 10-point visual analog scale questionnaire concerning breathing, oral dryness, tiredness, thirst, speaking, taste, nausea, difficulty in drinking, adaptability, and comfort.
Findings: MG3 interferes less with breathing, speaking, and oral dryness, and has better adaptability, more comfort, less nausea, and is easier to drink while wearing than MG2 – these differences are statistically significant. There are no statistically significant differences in CMJ between MG2 and MG3; for RB, there are statistically significant differences between not wearing a MG and MG3 – not wearing a MG gives values from 0 to 8 cm higher. PEF rates were significantly reduced by wearing either MG.
Key points/Summary: MG3 are the favorite and have the highest level of acceptance for most of the players. MG3 is the most effective and highly recommended to prevent sports injuries. The use of MG may impact a player’s performance, and might restrict forced expiratory air flow. Dentists should be proactive in promoting the use of mouthguards.
Assessment of article: Results not surprising.
Article title: Wearability and physiological effects of custom-fitted vs. self-adapted mouthguards
Author(s): Viera, D. et al
Journal: Dental Traumatology
Volume (number): 24
Month, Year: 2008
Major topic: mouthguards
Type of Article: research
Main Purpose: to measure the comfort, wearability, physiological effects and its influence on athletes’ physical performance, of custom-fitted compared with self-adapted mouthguards.
Overview of method of research: 11 rugby players, all males between 21 and 23 years of age with similar training levels, were selected to participate in the study. Each player received a “boil-and-bite” self-adapted mouthguard (MG2) and a custom fitted mouthguard (MG3). Each player made a weekly effort test randomly using either MG2, MG3, or no mouthguard for 3 consecutive weeks. The performance test was evaluated using counter-movement jumps (CMJ) and rebound jumps (RB). Forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory air volume at 1 s (FEV1), peak expiratory flow rates (PEF), FEV1/FVC, and mid-expiratory flow (MEF) were recorded. The players completed a 10-point visual analog scale questionnaire concerning breathing, oral dryness, tiredness, thirst, speaking, taste, nausea, difficulty in drinking, adaptability, and comfort.
Findings: MG3 interferes less with breathing, speaking, and oral dryness, and has better adaptability, more comfort, less nausea, and is easier to drink while wearing than MG2 – these differences are statistically significant. There are no statistically significant differences in CMJ between MG2 and MG3; for RB, there are statistically significant differences between not wearing a MG and MG3 – not wearing a MG gives values from 0 to 8 cm higher. PEF rates were significantly reduced by wearing either MG.
Key points/Summary: MG3 are the favorite and have the highest level of acceptance for most of the players. MG3 is the most effective and highly recommended to prevent sports injuries. The use of MG may impact a player’s performance, and might restrict forced expiratory air flow. Dentists should be proactive in promoting the use of mouthguards.
Assessment of article: Results not surprising.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A Technique for Fabricating Modern Athletic Mouthguards
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Lutheran Medical Center
Date: 11/13/2009
Article title: A Technique for Fabricating Modern Athletic Mouthguards
Author(s): Ray R Padilla, DDS
Journal: CDA Journal
Volume (number): Vol. 33, No 5
Month, Year: May 2005
Major topic: Mouthguard fabrication
Minor topics: Althletic Mouthguards
Type of Article: Technique article
Main Purpose: Instruct general dentists on the proper fabrication of a pressure laminated mouthguard
Overview of method of research: Review of literature included as preface to fabrication instructions.
Findings:
As more dental patients become active in athletic endeavors, oral-facial injuries are on the rise. Proper mouthguard use can significantly reduce injury and general dentists must be able to educate patients on the need for mouthgaurds as well as provide means to obtain such.
Key points/Summary :
There are 3 major types of mouthguards
Type I: store bought, one size fits all. Research does not support their use.
Type II: store bought boil-and-bite. May fit better than type I, but there is some “research” suggesting that they may be worthless.
Type II: professionally made, custom fitted. The holy grail of mouthguards. The standard are 3-4mm thick pressure laminates.
The literature only supports the professional recommendation of custom mouthguards.
A quality mouthguard should have 3mm labial thickness, 2mm palatal and 3mm occlusally.
The material of choice is ethylene vinyl acetate with shore hardness of 80.
As with any appliance, a great impression is imperative; the author recommends Accu-Dent multicolloid.
After pouring model, mark the highest level of the vestibule with a pencil and trim to that point.
Lube the model
Use 2 layers of 3mm ethylene vinyl acetate in two steps. One step will not allow for proper thickness in all areas needed.
Make sure that the lingual area is not bulky.
Trim areas of muscle attachment well and equilibrate occlusion by gently heating the mouthguard and having the patient bite together until all teeth are in contact.
Assessment of article: I with we had a pressure laminate system. I’ve made a few of these using our vacum system and if this author’s sources are right, they may have been as useful as not having a mouthguard at all. Still, this is a great service and can be a great practice builder. Good article for practical application.
Thickness and stiffness characteristics of custom made mouthguard materials
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Lutheran Medical Center
Resident’s Name: Craig Elice Date: 11/13/2009
Article title: Thickness and stiffness characteristics of custom made mouthguard materials
Author(s): Waked EJ, Caputo AA.
Journal: Quintessence Int.
Volume (number): 36:462-6
Month, Year: 2005
Major topic: Custom made mouthguards, stiffness and thickness
Minor topic(s):
Type of Article: Research article
Purpose: This study compares the thickness and stiffness of three different mouthguard materials and determines the suitability for concussion, and dental trauma prevention
Overview of method of research: Ten specimens were used in this study with models for each group. Porous stone models were used for vacuum formed mouthguards and soaped vacuum formed models were used for the pressure formed mouthguards. The three mouthguard materials included a 3mm regular Drufosoft material, the 4mm colored mouthguard and the 4mm prelaminated Proform mouthguards. Thicknesses were measured at three locations: the lingual cusp of the first molars, the distal marginal ridge of the first premolars and the facial of the central incisor. Stiffness was determined by the penetration of a 10lb force applied at the location of the lingual cusp of the first molars.
Findings: Key points/Summary: The thicknesses in all three locations were comparable for the two vacuum formed materials (1.5-2.5mm depending upon the location). However the pressure formed mouthguard materisl were significantly thicker at all three location (3.25-4.99mm). In terms of stiffness, the two vacuum formed mouthguards showed less deformation but even after deformation the pressure formed mouthguard was significantly thicker.
Discussion:
Recommendations/ Conclusions: For prevention of a concussion, a mouthguard thickness of greater than 3mm is suggested. Overall, the pressure laminated mouthguard proided better thickness; therefore, it would provide better protection against a concussion.
Assessment of article: Study was simple and supported the conclusion that pressure formed mouthguards were thicker.
Lutheran Medical Center
Resident’s Name: Craig Elice Date: 11/13/2009
Article title: Thickness and stiffness characteristics of custom made mouthguard materials
Author(s): Waked EJ, Caputo AA.
Journal: Quintessence Int.
Volume (number): 36:462-6
Month, Year: 2005
Major topic: Custom made mouthguards, stiffness and thickness
Minor topic(s):
Type of Article: Research article
Purpose: This study compares the thickness and stiffness of three different mouthguard materials and determines the suitability for concussion, and dental trauma prevention
Overview of method of research: Ten specimens were used in this study with models for each group. Porous stone models were used for vacuum formed mouthguards and soaped vacuum formed models were used for the pressure formed mouthguards. The three mouthguard materials included a 3mm regular Drufosoft material, the 4mm colored mouthguard and the 4mm prelaminated Proform mouthguards. Thicknesses were measured at three locations: the lingual cusp of the first molars, the distal marginal ridge of the first premolars and the facial of the central incisor. Stiffness was determined by the penetration of a 10lb force applied at the location of the lingual cusp of the first molars.
Findings: Key points/Summary: The thicknesses in all three locations were comparable for the two vacuum formed materials (1.5-2.5mm depending upon the location). However the pressure formed mouthguard materisl were significantly thicker at all three location (3.25-4.99mm). In terms of stiffness, the two vacuum formed mouthguards showed less deformation but even after deformation the pressure formed mouthguard was significantly thicker.
Discussion:
Recommendations/ Conclusions: For prevention of a concussion, a mouthguard thickness of greater than 3mm is suggested. Overall, the pressure laminated mouthguard proided better thickness; therefore, it would provide better protection against a concussion.
Assessment of article: Study was simple and supported the conclusion that pressure formed mouthguards were thicker.
Policy on Prevention of Sports-related Orofacial Injuries
Resident: Adam J. Bottrill
Date: 13NOV09
Region: Providence
Article title: Policy on Prevention of Sports-related Orofacial Injuries
Author(s): AAPD council on Clinical Affairs
Journal: Oral Health Policies Reference Manual
Page #s: p. 45
Year: 2005-2006
Major topic: Prevention of Sports-related Orofacial Injuries
Minor topic(s): Official Recommendations
Type of Article: Policy Statement
Main Purpose: Disseminate the AAPD’s Official Recommendations Regarding Sports-related Injuries.
Overview of method of research: NA
Key points in the article discussion:
A. Purpose:
1. The AAPD is concerned…. (I sure hope so)
2. Increased competitiveness has resulted in a large increase in orofacial and dental injuries.
a. represent a high percentage of the total injuries experienced in sports.
B. Background:
1. Mandatory protective equipment:
a. college football, lacrosse and ice hockey have demonstrated significant reduction of dental and facial injuries with the use of mouthguards.
2. Other sports lag behind significantly in this area.
a. baseball, basketball, soccer, field hockey, softball, wrestling, volleyball and gymnastics.
3. Leisure activities can also benefit from this type of protection.
a. skateboarding, inline or roller skating and bicycling
4. Mouth guards distribute forces of impact, reducing risk of severe orofacial injury and concussion.
a. must be fitted and worn properly.
5. 3 types
a. stock, mouth formed, custom fit (listed in reverse order of protectiveness)
C. Policy Statement:
1. Dentists play an active role in educating the public in the use of protective equipment. (prevent injuries AND reduce health care costs)
2. Continuation of preventive practices instituted by the previously mentioned sports organizations.
3. For baseball and softball, ASTM-certified face protector should be required.
4. Mandating mouthguards will help protect against orofacial injuries in many other sports.
5. Coaches and administrators of sports should consult with a dentist for recommendations for immediate management of sports-related injuries (eg, avulsed teeth).
6. Continuation of R&D for a more comfortable and efficacious mouthguard is needed to facilitate more widespread usage of the devices.
7. The International Academy of Sports Dentistry should be recognized as a valuable resource for the professions and the public.
Assessment of article: No shenanigans here. Just the straight scoop.
Parental attitudes toward mouthguards 11/13/2009
Resident: Hencler
Date: 11/13/2009
Article title: Parental attitudes toward mouthguards
Author(s): Diab, DMD; Mourino, DDS, MSD
Journal: Pediatric Dentistry-19:8, 1997
Major topic: Mouthguards and orofacial injuries during sports
Type of Article: Survey
Main Purpose: Evaluate parental attitudes towards mouthguard use in order to promote education in this area.
Overview of method of research: A simple one page survey was mailed to 1800 parents with children between the 4th and 9th grade (9-14 years old). 365 surveys were returned of which 359 were usable in this study.
Findings: Reasons given for not wearing a mouthguard include: didn’t think of it, uncomfortable, difficult to speak, don’t like it, uncool, looks funny, difficult to breath, comes out, and too costly. Most of these reasons would not be an issue if a custom mouthguard was fabricated. There were 206 survey reported injuries with 88% of these injuries occurring when a mouthguard was not being worn. Medical treatment was sought for 43 injuries with 31 being treated by a dentist. Sustained injuries from most to least common were: cut lip, bruised face, chipped tooth, loose tooth, and fractured jaw. Of the total injuries sustained 19% were in basketball, 17% in baseball, and 11% in soccer. Parents reported coaches and parents should be the responsible parties for enforcing mouthguard use.
Key points in the article discussion: Mouthguards reduce the potential harm to the face and head area by absorbing and diffusing the force from a traumatic blow. Past studies using cadavers have shown that mouthguards significantly decrease the amount of intracranial pressure and bone deformation in the skull when trauma occurs. Mouthguards have also been found to reduce the number of concussions, cerebral hemorrhages, incidences of unconsciousness, and general neck problems. Other benefits include decreasing the number of jaw fractures by preventing the condyle from being displaced upward and backward against the glenoid fossae and also by displacing soft tissue away from teeth preventing laceration and bruising of the lips and cheeks.
Summary of conclusions: Parents generally felt:
1. Mouthguard enforcement is the responsibility of both parents and coaches.
2. Mandatory mouthguard rule for football, boxing, ice hockey, wrestling, and the ancient art of karate.
3. There is a lack of perceived need for mouthguards in basketball. Baseball, and soccer, although these are the sports with the most frequently reported injuries
4. There is a lack of perceived need for mouthguards unless the child had sustained an injury previously or played a contact sport or mandatory mouthguard sport.
5. Mouthguards should be required more for boys than girls who participate in sports.
Assessment of article: Information not particularly surprising but relevant to any pediatric dentist. Could be a great practice builder if you promoted and made mouthguards for local sports teams.
Date: 11/13/2009
Article title: Parental attitudes toward mouthguards
Author(s): Diab, DMD; Mourino, DDS, MSD
Journal: Pediatric Dentistry-19:8, 1997
Major topic: Mouthguards and orofacial injuries during sports
Type of Article: Survey
Main Purpose: Evaluate parental attitudes towards mouthguard use in order to promote education in this area.
Overview of method of research: A simple one page survey was mailed to 1800 parents with children between the 4th and 9th grade (9-14 years old). 365 surveys were returned of which 359 were usable in this study.
Findings: Reasons given for not wearing a mouthguard include: didn’t think of it, uncomfortable, difficult to speak, don’t like it, uncool, looks funny, difficult to breath, comes out, and too costly. Most of these reasons would not be an issue if a custom mouthguard was fabricated. There were 206 survey reported injuries with 88% of these injuries occurring when a mouthguard was not being worn. Medical treatment was sought for 43 injuries with 31 being treated by a dentist. Sustained injuries from most to least common were: cut lip, bruised face, chipped tooth, loose tooth, and fractured jaw. Of the total injuries sustained 19% were in basketball, 17% in baseball, and 11% in soccer. Parents reported coaches and parents should be the responsible parties for enforcing mouthguard use.
Key points in the article discussion: Mouthguards reduce the potential harm to the face and head area by absorbing and diffusing the force from a traumatic blow. Past studies using cadavers have shown that mouthguards significantly decrease the amount of intracranial pressure and bone deformation in the skull when trauma occurs. Mouthguards have also been found to reduce the number of concussions, cerebral hemorrhages, incidences of unconsciousness, and general neck problems. Other benefits include decreasing the number of jaw fractures by preventing the condyle from being displaced upward and backward against the glenoid fossae and also by displacing soft tissue away from teeth preventing laceration and bruising of the lips and cheeks.
Summary of conclusions: Parents generally felt:
1. Mouthguard enforcement is the responsibility of both parents and coaches.
2. Mandatory mouthguard rule for football, boxing, ice hockey, wrestling, and the ancient art of karate.
3. There is a lack of perceived need for mouthguards in basketball. Baseball, and soccer, although these are the sports with the most frequently reported injuries
4. There is a lack of perceived need for mouthguards unless the child had sustained an injury previously or played a contact sport or mandatory mouthguard sport.
5. Mouthguards should be required more for boys than girls who participate in sports.
Assessment of article: Information not particularly surprising but relevant to any pediatric dentist. Could be a great practice builder if you promoted and made mouthguards for local sports teams.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Compliance of children and youngsters in the use of mouthguards 11/13/09
LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER
Dental Residency Program
Literature Review Form
Resident: Murphy Date: 11/12/09 Region: Prov.
Article title: Compliance of Children and youngsters in the use of mouthguards
Author(s): Matalon, Vered. Ilana Brin, et al
Journal: Dental Traumatology
Volume #; Number; Page #s): 24. 462-467
Year: 2008
Major topic: Children’s compliance wearing mouthguards during sports
Minor topic(s): Parents understanding of why a mouthguard is necessary
Type of Article: Clinical Study, Survey
Main Purpose: Assess why children do or do not wear their mouthguards.
Overview of method of research: Originally, 80 children were chosen for the study. The only criteria were that they have fully erupted incisors(they did not specify which incisors). The mean age was of the children was 12.7. There were 42 boys, 27 girls, and 21 of the children were siblings. A year later, 69 children and their parents completed a survey to gain information on terms of compliance regarding the appliance.
Findings: A mouthguard can be defined as a resilient appliance placed inside the mouth to protect against injuries to the teeth, lacerations to the mouth, fractures, and dislocations of the jaw. There is also evidence that they can protect against concussion and injury to the cervical spine. 26% of all oral injuries are a result of sports. According to the study, only 27% of athletes are aware that mouthguards should be worn, and only 3% reported using a mouthguard. In terms of compliance, 29% said they never wore it, 32 percent said they wore it sometimes, 23 percent said when they first got it they wore it all the time, but not so much anymore, and 16% wore it all the time. Reasons for not wearing the appliance were numerous, with the three most common being, ‘I forget to wear it’, it’s not comfortable’(55% said this), and ‘I’m embarrassed to wear it because none of my friends wear one’. 32% of the children lost their appliance. 4.5% lost the appliance after one week, 36.4% after a month, and 59.1% more than a month. With regards to the parents, 46% stated that using a mouthguard is essential, 40% didn’t know if it was helpful, and 6.3% said it was unnecessary. Additionally, 37.5% of parents thought that asking the child to use it was unrealistic. 77% said that their children did not previously have a mouthguard because they didn’t know it was available. Also, 47.9% said their dentist never offered them one.
Summary of conclusions: There are three predictors that the study focused on. Gender, boys are more likely to wear the appliance, age, younger children are less likely to wear the appliance, and sibling position, children that were born later in the sibling order were less likely to comply. Most children who didn’t use their mouthguards did so because of forgetfulness(45%) or discomfort(42%). History of family oral trauma did not increase parent’s awareness of mouthguard importance. More than half of the parents said that their child did not have a mouth guard because their dentist or physician never told them about it. After one year, 68% of the children still had their mouthguard, but a third of them never used it.
Assessment of article: Overall a very good article with relevant facts regarding the use and compliance of mouthguards with respect to children. The take home message is offer mouthguards to your patients, and the younger they are, the lower they are on the sibling tree, and whether they’re a boy or a girl will give you a fairly good idea if they’re going to wear it….or “lose it" before they reach the parking lot.
Dental Residency Program
Literature Review Form
Resident: Murphy Date: 11/12/09 Region: Prov.
Article title: Compliance of Children and youngsters in the use of mouthguards
Author(s): Matalon, Vered. Ilana Brin, et al
Journal: Dental Traumatology
Volume #; Number; Page #s): 24. 462-467
Year: 2008
Major topic: Children’s compliance wearing mouthguards during sports
Minor topic(s): Parents understanding of why a mouthguard is necessary
Type of Article: Clinical Study, Survey
Main Purpose: Assess why children do or do not wear their mouthguards.
Overview of method of research: Originally, 80 children were chosen for the study. The only criteria were that they have fully erupted incisors(they did not specify which incisors). The mean age was of the children was 12.7. There were 42 boys, 27 girls, and 21 of the children were siblings. A year later, 69 children and their parents completed a survey to gain information on terms of compliance regarding the appliance.
Findings: A mouthguard can be defined as a resilient appliance placed inside the mouth to protect against injuries to the teeth, lacerations to the mouth, fractures, and dislocations of the jaw. There is also evidence that they can protect against concussion and injury to the cervical spine. 26% of all oral injuries are a result of sports. According to the study, only 27% of athletes are aware that mouthguards should be worn, and only 3% reported using a mouthguard. In terms of compliance, 29% said they never wore it, 32 percent said they wore it sometimes, 23 percent said when they first got it they wore it all the time, but not so much anymore, and 16% wore it all the time. Reasons for not wearing the appliance were numerous, with the three most common being, ‘I forget to wear it’, it’s not comfortable’(55% said this), and ‘I’m embarrassed to wear it because none of my friends wear one’. 32% of the children lost their appliance. 4.5% lost the appliance after one week, 36.4% after a month, and 59.1% more than a month. With regards to the parents, 46% stated that using a mouthguard is essential, 40% didn’t know if it was helpful, and 6.3% said it was unnecessary. Additionally, 37.5% of parents thought that asking the child to use it was unrealistic. 77% said that their children did not previously have a mouthguard because they didn’t know it was available. Also, 47.9% said their dentist never offered them one.
Summary of conclusions: There are three predictors that the study focused on. Gender, boys are more likely to wear the appliance, age, younger children are less likely to wear the appliance, and sibling position, children that were born later in the sibling order were less likely to comply. Most children who didn’t use their mouthguards did so because of forgetfulness(45%) or discomfort(42%). History of family oral trauma did not increase parent’s awareness of mouthguard importance. More than half of the parents said that their child did not have a mouth guard because their dentist or physician never told them about it. After one year, 68% of the children still had their mouthguard, but a third of them never used it.
Assessment of article: Overall a very good article with relevant facts regarding the use and compliance of mouthguards with respect to children. The take home message is offer mouthguards to your patients, and the younger they are, the lower they are on the sibling tree, and whether they’re a boy or a girl will give you a fairly good idea if they’re going to wear it….or “lose it" before they reach the parking lot.
A Modified Method of Mouthguard Fabrication for Orthodontic Patients
LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER
Dental Residency Program
Literature Review Form
Resident: Boboia Date: 11/9/09
Article title: A Modified Method of Mouthguard Fabrication for Orthodontic Patients
Author(s): Maeda et al.
Journal: Dental Traumatology
Volume #; Number; Page #s): 24, 475-442
Year: 2008
Purpose: Describe a method for custom-made MG fabrication using sheet and tube materials
Orthodontic appliances are a major risk factor for traumatic injuries during sport events. Taking precise impressions is difficult resulting in poorly fitting mouthguards.
Summary Fabrication Procedure:
1) Take alginate impressions and pour
2) Apply a catheter tube material to the surface of the brackets by making a cut and fixing it with cyano-acrylate adhesive
3) Use a 3mm thick sheet and vacuum former and to make mouth guard
4) Make necessary adjustments after trimming and polishing
Discussion:
In fabricating mouthguard one must minimize bulk, maximize retention, leave space available for tooth movement, achieve retention to the anchor tooth positions.
Assesment: Good article for those people who have never made a athletic mouthguard. The only item worth noting is the use of a tube as a block out material for orthodontic brackets and arch wire.
Dental Residency Program
Literature Review Form
Resident: Boboia Date: 11/9/09
Article title: A Modified Method of Mouthguard Fabrication for Orthodontic Patients
Author(s): Maeda et al.
Journal: Dental Traumatology
Volume #; Number; Page #s): 24, 475-442
Year: 2008
Purpose: Describe a method for custom-made MG fabrication using sheet and tube materials
Orthodontic appliances are a major risk factor for traumatic injuries during sport events. Taking precise impressions is difficult resulting in poorly fitting mouthguards.
Summary Fabrication Procedure:
1) Take alginate impressions and pour
2) Apply a catheter tube material to the surface of the brackets by making a cut and fixing it with cyano-acrylate adhesive
3) Use a 3mm thick sheet and vacuum former and to make mouth guard
4) Make necessary adjustments after trimming and polishing
Discussion:
In fabricating mouthguard one must minimize bulk, maximize retention, leave space available for tooth movement, achieve retention to the anchor tooth positions.
Assesment: Good article for those people who have never made a athletic mouthguard. The only item worth noting is the use of a tube as a block out material for orthodontic brackets and arch wire.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Dentist attitudes towards mouthgaurd protection
Resident: Roberts
Article title: Dentist attitudes toward mouthgaurd protection
Author: Maestrello, Christopher et al.
Journal: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
Volume: 21: 6 pages 340 – 345
Year: 1999
Issues/Findings:
From the last 30 years numerous articles have been published citing studies that targeted the attitudes of ball players, coaches, referees, school and league officials, however, none cited the attitude of the dentist towards mouthgaurds – until this paper. Presently only the amateur sports of football, ice hockey, boxing, men’s lacrosse, and women’s field hockey and the professional sport of boxing mandate the use of mouthgaurds. Studies indicate the use of mouthgaurds in contact sports and show that up to 1/3 of all dental trauma occur in sports accidents.
Three types of mouthgaurds exist: stock, mouthformed, and custom made. Class 1 and 2 dentitions receive maxillary mouthgaurds, while class 3 pts receive mandibular mouthgaurds. The most desirable qualities of a mouth guards are protection, retention, comfort, fit, ease of speech, resistance to tear, and ease of breathing – all of these which are best obtained via a custom mouthgaurd.
Interesting fact: 72% of high schools report using sales reps as a source for selecting mouthgaurds, 33% report using publications and literature, 11% consult a dentist.
In this study 2500 dentist were surveyed in Virginia: 1999 GP’s, 213 Orthodontist, 88 pediatric dentists. A response rate of 834(38%) of GP’s, 113 (53%) of orthodontists, and 45(51%) of Pediatric dentist were obtained.
Conclusions:
1. Recent graduates are more likely to have an understanding of mouthgaurds
2. Dentist that recommend mouthgaurds and types
a. GP’s 66% custom, mouthformed, stock
b. Ortho 97% stock, custom, mouthformed
c. Ped 85% custom, mouthformed, stock
Sports most likely recommended to use by dentist in order
Football, basketball, boxing, ice hockey, field hockey, wrestling, martial arts, soccer, lacrosse, baseball, rollerblading, ice skating, volleyball, gymnastics, bicycling, skiing, water sports, tennis, track and field…
Reasons dentist did not recommend mouthgaurds
1. Pt could get less expensive mouthgaurd somewhere else
2. Dentist had no formal training on how to use or fabricate mouthgaurds
3. Not the responsibility of the dentist to recommend
4. Not profitable
5. other
Article title: Dentist attitudes toward mouthgaurd protection
Author: Maestrello, Christopher et al.
Journal: American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
Volume: 21: 6 pages 340 – 345
Year: 1999
Issues/Findings:
From the last 30 years numerous articles have been published citing studies that targeted the attitudes of ball players, coaches, referees, school and league officials, however, none cited the attitude of the dentist towards mouthgaurds – until this paper. Presently only the amateur sports of football, ice hockey, boxing, men’s lacrosse, and women’s field hockey and the professional sport of boxing mandate the use of mouthgaurds. Studies indicate the use of mouthgaurds in contact sports and show that up to 1/3 of all dental trauma occur in sports accidents.
Three types of mouthgaurds exist: stock, mouthformed, and custom made. Class 1 and 2 dentitions receive maxillary mouthgaurds, while class 3 pts receive mandibular mouthgaurds. The most desirable qualities of a mouth guards are protection, retention, comfort, fit, ease of speech, resistance to tear, and ease of breathing – all of these which are best obtained via a custom mouthgaurd.
Interesting fact: 72% of high schools report using sales reps as a source for selecting mouthgaurds, 33% report using publications and literature, 11% consult a dentist.
In this study 2500 dentist were surveyed in Virginia: 1999 GP’s, 213 Orthodontist, 88 pediatric dentists. A response rate of 834(38%) of GP’s, 113 (53%) of orthodontists, and 45(51%) of Pediatric dentist were obtained.
Conclusions:
1. Recent graduates are more likely to have an understanding of mouthgaurds
2. Dentist that recommend mouthgaurds and types
a. GP’s 66% custom, mouthformed, stock
b. Ortho 97% stock, custom, mouthformed
c. Ped 85% custom, mouthformed, stock
Sports most likely recommended to use by dentist in order
Football, basketball, boxing, ice hockey, field hockey, wrestling, martial arts, soccer, lacrosse, baseball, rollerblading, ice skating, volleyball, gymnastics, bicycling, skiing, water sports, tennis, track and field…
Reasons dentist did not recommend mouthgaurds
1. Pt could get less expensive mouthgaurd somewhere else
2. Dentist had no formal training on how to use or fabricate mouthgaurds
3. Not the responsibility of the dentist to recommend
4. Not profitable
5. other
Fabricating a better mouthguard. Part I: Factors influencing mouthguard thinning.
Resident’s Name: Brian Schmid DMD Date: 11/13/09
Article title: Fabricating a better mouthguard. Part I: Factors influencing mouthguard thinning.
Author(s): De Rossi G. Leyte Bidal MA.
Journal: Dental Traumatology
Month, Year: 2007
Major topic: Mouthguard fabrication and thermoforming effect on mouthguard thickness
Type of Article: Technique analysis
Findings: Fifteen patients had alginate impressions taken and each was poured up 3 times. They were trimmed for mouthguard fabrication with cast thicknesses of 20, 25 and 30mm. The mouthguards were made via pressure lamination with EVA in a Drufomat machine. The thickness of various parts of the mouthguard including the occlusal table and the facial of the incisors and canines were measured and analyzed. There was a significant difference in incisor and canine thickness between the 3 groups, with the shortest cast being the thickest progressing up to the tallest cast being the thinnest. Also, the thinnest group kept the difference between anterior and posterio thickness to a minimum suggesting that a shorter cast will provide a mouthguard with the most uniform thickness, which has been shown to be the most comfortable and allow the greatest freedom of speech and breathing. The short cast mouthguards were also analyzed for thickness related to jaw size and arch length for which there was a positive correlation.
Key points/Summary: Shorter casts will generally give you a mouthguard of uniform thickness and increased protection in the anterior. Patients with larger arch length and jaw size may be at an advantage since the fabrication process lends itself to thicker mouthguards for these patients.
Assessment of article: A small N, particularly for the arch length/area analysis, makes this study a step in the right direction but well shy of a definitive study. Also, they fabricated their mouthguards with a landing present on the casts; all of the instruction I’ve seen has you grind off the landing, which allows you to make the cast even shorter. Definitely an interesting opportunity for future research.
Article title: Fabricating a better mouthguard. Part I: Factors influencing mouthguard thinning.
Author(s): De Rossi G. Leyte Bidal MA.
Journal: Dental Traumatology
Month, Year: 2007
Major topic: Mouthguard fabrication and thermoforming effect on mouthguard thickness
Type of Article: Technique analysis
Findings: Fifteen patients had alginate impressions taken and each was poured up 3 times. They were trimmed for mouthguard fabrication with cast thicknesses of 20, 25 and 30mm. The mouthguards were made via pressure lamination with EVA in a Drufomat machine. The thickness of various parts of the mouthguard including the occlusal table and the facial of the incisors and canines were measured and analyzed. There was a significant difference in incisor and canine thickness between the 3 groups, with the shortest cast being the thickest progressing up to the tallest cast being the thinnest. Also, the thinnest group kept the difference between anterior and posterio thickness to a minimum suggesting that a shorter cast will provide a mouthguard with the most uniform thickness, which has been shown to be the most comfortable and allow the greatest freedom of speech and breathing. The short cast mouthguards were also analyzed for thickness related to jaw size and arch length for which there was a positive correlation.
Key points/Summary: Shorter casts will generally give you a mouthguard of uniform thickness and increased protection in the anterior. Patients with larger arch length and jaw size may be at an advantage since the fabrication process lends itself to thicker mouthguards for these patients.
Assessment of article: A small N, particularly for the arch length/area analysis, makes this study a step in the right direction but well shy of a definitive study. Also, they fabricated their mouthguards with a landing present on the casts; all of the instruction I’ve seen has you grind off the landing, which allows you to make the cast even shorter. Definitely an interesting opportunity for future research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)