Schewe Philipp, Roehler Ariadne, Spintzyk Sebastian, Huettig Fabian
Department of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry, Oral Medicine and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Tuebingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
Medical Materials Science and Technology, University Hospital Tuebingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
Materials (Basel). 2022 Apr 17;15(8):2928. doi: 10.3390/ma15082928.
There are several in vitro testing options to investigate the efficacy of sports mouthguards. None of these represent everyday situations, but the effects of simple laws of physics can be observed. This enables the comparison of conventional materials for mouthguards towards fabrications from additive manufacturing.
A ball-drop experiment measured the maximum force and temporospatial distribution of a vertical impact on six material groups and a reference group (No-MG). Three conventional materials (ethylenvinylacetate) with 1, 2, and 3 layers were compared with additively manufactured (AM) specimens of comparable layering with a respective thickness of 4 mm, 5 mm, and 6.8 mm.
A maximum force of 8982.35 N ± 305.18 (No-MG) was maximum damped to 2470.60 N ± 87.00 (conventional 6.8 mm) compared with 5585.09 N ± 203.99 (AM 6.8 mm) Thereby, the ratio between shock absorption per millimeter was best for 4 mm thickness with means of 1722 N (conventional) and 624 N (AM).
Polymer layers demonstrated a force reduction up to 71.68%. For now, additively processed resins of comparable hardness and layering are inferior to conventional fabrications.
有几种体外测试方法可用于研究运动护齿器的功效。这些方法均无法模拟日常情况,但可以观察到简单物理定律的作用效果。这使得能够将传统护齿器材料与增材制造的产品进行比较。
通过落球实验测量了对六个材料组和一个参照组(无护齿器)进行垂直撞击时的最大力和时空分布。将三种具有1层、2层和3层的传统材料(乙烯-醋酸乙烯酯)与具有相似分层且厚度分别为4毫米、5毫米和6.8毫米的增材制造(AM)样品进行了比较。
最大力8982.35牛±305.18(无护齿器)最大可衰减至2470.60牛±87.00(传统6.8毫米),而增材制造6.8毫米的为5585.09牛±203.99。因此,每毫米减震的比率在厚度为4毫米时最佳,传统材料的平均值为1722牛,增材制造材料的平均值为624牛。
聚合物层的力降低高达71.68%。目前,硬度和分层相似的增材加工树脂不如传统制造产品。