Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitterYouTube
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

Publication:
June 2005
Volume 36 , Issue 6

Back
Share Abstract:

Thickness and stiffness characteristics of custom-made mouthguard materials

Emile J. Waked, DDS, FAGD/Angelo A. Caputo, PhD

Pages: 462466
PMID: 15954252

Objectives: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the thickness of different types of custom-made mouthguards after processing and the deformational changes after simulated occlusal loading. Materials and methods: Ten mouthguards were fabricated for the same dental arch using the following materials and processing techniques: Group I: vacuum-formed (4 mm), Colored Mouthguard; Group II: vacuum-formed (4 mm), Proform; and Group III: pressure-laminated (3 + 3 mm), Drufosoft. After processing, the thickness was measured in three places: lingual cusps of the first molar, distal marginal ridge of the first premolar; and facial of central incisor. The stiffness of each group was determined by applying a simulated clenching force to the first molar lingual cusp areas on an Instron test machine with a blunt probe. The corresponding penetration was measured with a dial gauge. Thickness and force-deflection measurements of the different mouthguard groups were compared using analysis of variance and post hoc tests. Results: The mean thicknesses at the molar for Groups I and II were 1.55 and 1.52 mm, respectively, and were significantly smaller then the corresponding thickness for Group III (3.48 mm). The mean thicknesses at the facial of the incisors for Groups I and II were similar (2.05 and 2.06 mm, respectively), and were significantly smaller than the corresponding thickness for Group III (3.29 mm). Groups I and II demonstrated similar stiffness that was significantly higher than that for Group III. Conclusion: These results show that vacuum-formed mouthguards produced smaller thicknesses than the pressure-laminated mouthguards. The pressure-laminated mouthguards produced material thicknesses that were previously shown to be adequate to protect athletes from trauma. (Quintessence Int 2005;36:462466)

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog