Oikarinen K S, Salonen M A, Korhonen J
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Oulu, Finland.
Endod Dent Traumatol. 1993 Jun;9(3):115-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1993.tb00262.x.
The guarding capacity of seven mouth protectors (Erkoflex 3.0 and 4.0, Erkoloc 3.0, 4.5 and 5.5, TranSheet/Perform and TranSheet/LiteLine) was tested mechanically on 20 plaster models, two or three tests on each mouth protector. Two tests on a plaster model without the protector served as control. An appliance was constructed to simulate the impact of an ice-hockey puck on the teeth, the plaster model was fixed onto the device and the minimum force needed to break the plaster teeth under the protector was recorded. The average total thickness and that of the soft and hard layers of the labial plates of each mouth protector were recorded along with the average thickness of the cervical and incisal hard and soft layers. The results showed that the best protection was achieved with the TranSheet/LiteLine model, followed by TranSheet/Perform and Erkoloc 5.5 and 4.5 mouthgards. All these had a resilient layer against the teeth, and it was shown in stepwise regression analysis that the only property having a statistically significant effect on the guarding capacity was the thickness of this cervical soft layer.
对七种口腔保护器(Erkoflex 3.0和4.0、Erkoloc 3.0、4.5和5.5、TranSheet/Perform以及TranSheet/LiteLine)的防护能力在20个石膏模型上进行了机械测试,每个口腔保护器进行两到三次测试。在没有保护器的石膏模型上进行两次测试作为对照。构建了一个装置来模拟冰球对牙齿的撞击,将石膏模型固定在该装置上,并记录在保护器下方打破石膏牙齿所需的最小力。记录了每个口腔保护器唇板的平均总厚度以及软硬层的厚度,以及颈部和切端软硬层的平均厚度。结果表明,TranSheet/LiteLine型号提供了最佳保护,其次是TranSheet/Perform以及Erkoloc 5.5和4.5口腔保护器。所有这些都有一层抵靠牙齿的弹性层,逐步回归分析表明,对防护能力有统计学显著影响的唯一特性是该颈部软层的厚度。