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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harrington, Claire, Minhas, Gursharan, Papageorgiou, Spyridon N, Cobourne, Martyn T
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