Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Experimental comparative study of various mouthguards.

J Hoffmann1, G Alfter, N K Rudolph

  • 1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Tübingen, Germany. juergen.hoffmann@uni-tuebingen.de

Endodontics & Dental Traumatology
|May 18, 2000
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Diagnostic accuracy of RISK6 assay in childhood pulmonary TB.

IJTLD open·2025
Same author

Non-sputum-based triage and confirmatory diagnostic tests for pediatric TB.

IJTLD open·2025
Same author

Addressing gaps in the diagnosis of TB in children.

IJTLD open·2024
Same author

Stool Xpert<sup>®</sup> MTB/RIF Ultra for TB diagnosis in children: experience from a national scale-up programme.

IJTLD open·2024
Same author

[Acceptance of psychosocial bridging measures in dementia : Treatment observation during the COVID-19 pandemic].

Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie·2022
Same author

Photogrammetric evaluation of corrective surgery for trigonocephaly.

International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery·2021

Mouthguards significantly reduce tooth deflection from impacts compared to unprotected teeth. Thicker, more rigid mouthguards offer better cushioning, while user-fitted devices perform worse than lab-made ones.

Area of Science:

  • Sports Medicine
  • Biomechanical Engineering
  • Materials Science

Background:

  • Mouthguards are crucial protective equipment in sports to prevent dental injuries.
  • Understanding the mechanical properties of mouthguards is essential for optimizing their protective capabilities.
  • Variability in commercial mouthguard performance necessitates objective evaluation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the mechanical and physical properties of commercially available mouthguards.
  • To compare the protective efficacy of different mouthguard designs and materials.
  • To investigate the relationship between mouthguard characteristics and impact force dissipation.

Main Methods:

  • Development of a specialized study model for objective impact testing.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Utilizing a pendulum ram impact testing machine to induce forces.
  • Measuring tooth deflection and correlating it with unprotected teeth data.
  • Evaluating cushioning effects and force conduction of various mouthguards.

    • Main Results:

    • Mouthguards substantially decrease tooth deflection under impact compared to unprotected teeth.
    • Force is effectively distributed to adjacent teeth, even in distal regions.
    • Cushioning is directly proportional to material thickness; rigidity influences force distribution.
    • Significant variations in performance were observed due to material thickness, manufacturing, and composition.
    • User-fitted mouthguards demonstrated inferior cushioning and force dissipation compared to laboratory-produced equivalents.

    Conclusions:

    • Mouthguard thickness and material rigidity are key determinants of protective performance.
    • Commercial mouthguards exhibit considerable variability in their ability to cushion impacts and distribute forces.
    • Laboratory-produced mouthguards generally outperform user-fitted ones, highlighting the importance of manufacturing and design.
    • Further research into material science and manufacturing processes can enhance mouthguard efficacy in sports injury prevention.