Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 10, 2026
In Vivo Evaluation of the Mechanical and Viscoelastic Properties of the Rat Tongue
Published on: July 6, 2017
Comparison of shock absorption capacities of three types of mouthguards: A comparative in vitro study
Yohan Arfi1, Aurélie Benoit1, Laurent Tapie1,2
1Innovative Biomaterials and Interfaces Research Unit - UR4462, University Paris Cité, Montrouge, France.
Background/Aim:
3D printing processes can be used to manufacture custom-made mouthguards for sports activities. Few studies have compared the impact performance of industrial-created mouthguards with that of custom-made mouthguards manufactured by thermoforming or 3D printing. The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the shock absorption capacities of custom-made mouthguards manufactured by 3D printing with industrial mouthguards and thermoformed ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguards.
Materials And Methods:
For each type of mouthguard, eight samples were produced. 3D-printed mouthguards were manufactured using digital light processing technology. Each mouthguard was subjected to an impact performance test defined by the standard AFNOR XP S72-427, which evaluate maximum deceleration and force transmitted during impact. The thickness of each mouthguard before and after a series of five impacts was measured at the impacted inter-incisal area.
Results:
The mean maximum decelerations during impact ranged from 129 to 189 g for industrial mouthguards, 287 to 425 g for thermoformed EVA mouthguards, and 277 to 302 g for 3D-printed mouthguards. The mean reduction in mouthguard thickness at the impact zone after five tests was 1.2 mm for industrial mouthguards, 0.6 mm for 3D-printed mouthguards, and 2.2 mm for thermoformed EVA mouthguards.
Conclusions:
Custom-made 3D printed mouthguards showed slightly better shock absorption ability than thermoformed mouthguards with respect to the indicator proposed in XP S72-427. They seemed to combine the practical advantages of thermoformed mouthguards in sports with better shock absorption capacity and lower cost. Furthermore, they had the least thickness variation during the test, and their shock absorption capacity was the least affected by repeated mechanical tests. Other types of 3D-printing resin materials that will become available must continue to be tested for shock absorption to provide the best protection to users at low cost.
More Related Videos
07:30A Test Bed to Examine Helmet Fit and Retention and Biomechanical Measures of Head and Neck Injury in Simulated Impact
Published on: September 21, 2017
07:42Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
