Cargando…
What are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? An in vitro study
BACKGROUND: Orthodontic patients wearing fixed appliances are susceptible to traumatic dental injuries during contact-sport. This laboratory study investigated the protective qualities of orthodontic mouthguards using impact-testing to a typodont fitted with a fixed appliance through peak load trans...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8789267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34061175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjab023 |
_version_ | 1784639729994563584 |
---|---|
author | Harrington, Claire Minhas, Gursharan Papageorgiou, Spyridon N Cobourne, Martyn T |
author_facet | Harrington, Claire Minhas, Gursharan Papageorgiou, Spyridon N Cobourne, Martyn T |
author_sort | Harrington, Claire |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Orthodontic patients wearing fixed appliances are susceptible to traumatic dental injuries during contact-sport. This laboratory study investigated the protective qualities of orthodontic mouthguards using impact-testing to a typodont fitted with a fixed appliance through peak load transfer and retention of the mouthguard. METHODS: Seven orthodontic mouthguards [three custom-made (Medium-CM, Heavy-CM, Heavy-pro-CM); three commercially-available mouth-formed (Shock-Doctor® Ultra Braces, Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces, Opro® Ortho-Bronze Braces) and a Shock-Doctor® Instant-Fit] were fitted to a maxillary arch typodont bonded with a fixed appliance and impact-tested using 0.5 or 1 Joule (J) energy via hockey-ball, cricket-ball or steel-ball projectile. A load-cell recorded peak load transfer through mouthguard to typodont with retention scored in a binary manner dependent upon any displacement following impact. Differences across mouthguards were calculated with ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis test for normal and non-normal data, respectively. Post hoc comparisons across mouthguards were conducted via Dunnett's test with Sidak correction. RESULTS: Only the three custom-made and Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces were not displaced by impact-testing. For these, Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces transferred the smallest load for 3/6 impact-tests, followed by Medium-CM. Heavy-pro-CM performed poorly, ranking penultimate or worst for all impact-tests. Significant differences were found between mouthguards for cricket-ball and steel-ball set-ups. The Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces performed better than the Heavy and Heavy-pro-CM for 0.5 J cricket-ball impact-test (P < 0.05), whilst Medium-CM performed better than Heavy-pro-CM. For 1 J cricket-ball, there were significant differences between Medium-CM and Heavy-pro-CM (P < 0.05). For 0.5 J steel-ball, the Medium-CM performed significantly better than both Heavy-pro-CM and Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces (P < 0.05), whilst Heavy-CM performed better than the Heavy-pro-CM (P < 0.05). For the 1 J steel-ball, Medium and Heavy-CM performed better than Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Opro® Ortho-Gold and Medium-CM mouthguards offer the best protection for low-impact sports, whilst Medium or Heavy-CM mouthguards are recommended for high-impact sport. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8789267 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87892672022-01-26 What are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? An in vitro study Harrington, Claire Minhas, Gursharan Papageorgiou, Spyridon N Cobourne, Martyn T Eur J Orthod Original Article BACKGROUND: Orthodontic patients wearing fixed appliances are susceptible to traumatic dental injuries during contact-sport. This laboratory study investigated the protective qualities of orthodontic mouthguards using impact-testing to a typodont fitted with a fixed appliance through peak load transfer and retention of the mouthguard. METHODS: Seven orthodontic mouthguards [three custom-made (Medium-CM, Heavy-CM, Heavy-pro-CM); three commercially-available mouth-formed (Shock-Doctor® Ultra Braces, Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces, Opro® Ortho-Bronze Braces) and a Shock-Doctor® Instant-Fit] were fitted to a maxillary arch typodont bonded with a fixed appliance and impact-tested using 0.5 or 1 Joule (J) energy via hockey-ball, cricket-ball or steel-ball projectile. A load-cell recorded peak load transfer through mouthguard to typodont with retention scored in a binary manner dependent upon any displacement following impact. Differences across mouthguards were calculated with ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis test for normal and non-normal data, respectively. Post hoc comparisons across mouthguards were conducted via Dunnett's test with Sidak correction. RESULTS: Only the three custom-made and Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces were not displaced by impact-testing. For these, Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces transferred the smallest load for 3/6 impact-tests, followed by Medium-CM. Heavy-pro-CM performed poorly, ranking penultimate or worst for all impact-tests. Significant differences were found between mouthguards for cricket-ball and steel-ball set-ups. The Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces performed better than the Heavy and Heavy-pro-CM for 0.5 J cricket-ball impact-test (P < 0.05), whilst Medium-CM performed better than Heavy-pro-CM. For 1 J cricket-ball, there were significant differences between Medium-CM and Heavy-pro-CM (P < 0.05). For 0.5 J steel-ball, the Medium-CM performed significantly better than both Heavy-pro-CM and Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces (P < 0.05), whilst Heavy-CM performed better than the Heavy-pro-CM (P < 0.05). For the 1 J steel-ball, Medium and Heavy-CM performed better than Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Opro® Ortho-Gold and Medium-CM mouthguards offer the best protection for low-impact sports, whilst Medium or Heavy-CM mouthguards are recommended for high-impact sport. Oxford University Press 2021-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8789267/ /pubmed/34061175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjab023 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Harrington, Claire Minhas, Gursharan Papageorgiou, Spyridon N Cobourne, Martyn T What are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? An in vitro study |
title | What are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? An in vitro study |
title_full | What are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? An in vitro study |
title_fullStr | What are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? An in vitro study |
title_full_unstemmed | What are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? An in vitro study |
title_short | What are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? An in vitro study |
title_sort | what are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? an in vitro study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8789267/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34061175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjab023 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT harringtonclaire whatarethedifferencesinprotectivecharacteristicsoforthodonticmouthguardsaninvitrostudy AT minhasgursharan whatarethedifferencesinprotectivecharacteristicsoforthodonticmouthguardsaninvitrostudy AT papageorgiouspyridonn whatarethedifferencesinprotectivecharacteristicsoforthodonticmouthguardsaninvitrostudy AT cobournemartynt whatarethedifferencesinprotectivecharacteristicsoforthodonticmouthguardsaninvitrostudy |