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.