Characterization of mouthguards: Impact performance.

BACKGROUND/AIM: It is difficult to characterize the impact behavior of mouthguards on the basis of their components. Impact behavior tests should be performed on mouthguard formed to simulate their intra-oral performance. The aim of this study was to compare the impact behavior of six models of mouthguards using a standardized experimental protocol.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four commercially available mouth-formed mouthguards (SDI™, Gel Nano™, Opro Shield Gold™ and Kipsta R300™), one mouth-formed mouthguard prototype and one custom-made mouthguard were tested. The procedures recommended by the manufacturers (injecting procedure for custom-made mouthguard and "boil-and-bite" procedures for mouth-formed mouthguards) were used to adapt five samples per model on steel jaws. Impact performances were assessed according to labial aspect thickness and maximum contact load (FMax) during impact using a drop tower.

RESULTS

SDI™ and Opro Shield Gold™ had the thinnest labial aspect thickness (P<.01), followed by the Gel Nano™ and the Kipsta R300™ (P<.01) with a thickness of about 3 mm. The prototype and custom-made mouthguard were thicker (almost 4 mm). The custom-made mouthguard, the Kipsta R300™ and the prototype had the best impact performances, but the labial aspect thickness of the Kipsta R300™ was significantly lower than that of the custom-made mouthguard and the prototype. Analysis of force curves and position of the mouthguard on the impacted zone showed that the Kipsta R300™ was less well adapted.

CONCLUSION

Thickness and impact performance are not sufficient criteria to characterize performance of mouthguards.