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.
Showing posts with label 11/13/09 mouthguard thickness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 11/13/09 mouthguard thickness. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2009
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)