Mendel Deborah A, Ucar Yurdanur, Brantley William A, Rashid Robert G, Harrell Sarah L, Grentzer Thomas H
Section of Primary Care, College of Dentistry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43218, USA.
Dent Traumatol. 2009 Feb;25(1):130-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2008.00751.x.
High impact energy absorption is an essential property for mouthguard materials. The impact test performance of three popular mouthguard materials was evaluated, using the procedure in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D3763. Conventional ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA; T&S Dental and Plastics, Myerstown, PA, USA) served as the control. Pro-form (Dental Resources Inc., Delano, MN, USA), another EVA material, and PolyShok (Sportsguard Laboratories, Kent, OH, USA), an EVA product containing polyurethane were also evaluated. Specimens having dimensions of 3 inch x 3 inch x 4 mm were prepared from each material. After processing that followed manufacturer recommendations, specimens were conditioned for 1 h in 37 degrees C deionized water and loaded at 20 mph by a 0.5 inch diameter indenter containing a force transducer (Dynatup Model 9250 HV; Instron Corp., Canton, MA, USA). Both large-diameter (3 inches) and small-diameter (1.5 inch) support rings were used. For comparison, two specimens of each material were tested in the dry condition. Energy absorption was determined from the area under the force-time curve at 30 ms, and results for the water-conditioned specimens were compared using anova and the Kruskal-Wallis test. For the large-diameter support ring, energy absorption (mean +/- SD in ft x lbf inch(-1)), normalized to specimen thickness, was: EVA (n = 5), 110.2 +/- 48.4; Pro-form (n = 4), 110.0 +/- 11.3; PolyShok (n = 5), 105.7 +/- 16.5. For the small-diameter support ring, energy absorption was: EVA (n = 6), 140.5 +/- 13.9; Pro-form (n = 5), 109.0 +/- 26.0; PolyShok (n = 6), 124.4 +/- 28.4 (1 ft x lbf inch(-1) = 0.534 J cm(-1)). Because of substantial variation within some specimen groups, there was no significant difference in energy absorption for the three water-conditioned mouthguard materials and the two support ring sizes. The energy absorption for each material was much greater for other specimens tested in the dry condition.
高冲击能量吸收是护齿材料的一项基本特性。采用美国材料与试验协会（ASTM）标准D3763中的程序，对三种常用护齿材料的冲击试验性能进行了评估。传统的乙烯-醋酸乙烯共聚物（EVA；T&S Dental and Plastics，美国宾夕法尼亚州迈尔斯敦）作为对照。还评估了另一种EVA材料Pro-form（美国明尼苏达州德拉诺市Dental Resources Inc.）以及一种含聚氨酯的EVA产品PolyShok（美国俄亥俄州肯特市Sportsguard Laboratories）。从每种材料制备尺寸为3英寸×3英寸×4毫米的试样。按照制造商的建议进行加工后，将试样在37摄氏度的去离子水中调节1小时，并通过一个包含力传感器的0.5英寸直径压头（Dynatup Model 9250 HV；美国马萨诸塞州坎顿市Instron Corp.）以20英里/小时的速度加载。使用了大直径（3英寸）和小直径（1.5英寸）的支撑环。为作比较，每种材料的两个试样在干燥条件下进行测试。在30毫秒时根据力-时间曲线下的面积确定能量吸收，并使用方差分析和Kruskal-Wallis检验对水调节试样的结果进行比较。对于大直径支撑环，归一化到试样厚度的能量吸收（单位为英尺×磅力英寸⁻¹，均值±标准差）为：EVA（n = 5），110.2 ± 48.4；Pro-form（n = 4），110.0 ± 11.3；PolyShok（n = 5），105.7 ± 16.5。对于小直径支撑环，能量吸收为：EVA（n = 6），140.5 ± 13.9；Pro-form（n = 5），109.0 ± 26.0；PolyShok（n = 6），124.4 ± 28.4（1英尺×磅力英寸⁻¹ = 0.534焦耳厘米⁻¹）。由于某些试样组内存在较大差异，三种水调节护齿材料以及两种支撑环尺寸的能量吸收没有显著差异。每种材料在干燥条件下测试的其他试样的能量吸收要大得多。
