IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Mouthguard Lamination on Impact Force Delivered by Baseballs
Objectives: To test whether the layering organization and lamination thickness of mouthguards can dissipate the peak force or force duration of impacts delivered by a direct blow to the mouth by a baseball.
Methods: Mouthguards were produced using clear splint biocryl polyethylene terephthalate glycol (B) and “Mouthguard Material” ethylene vinyl acetate (M), both from Great Lakes Orthodontics LTD, Tonawanda, NY. Two tray types were made (n=3/group) using different layering configurations: B-M-B (MG1) and B-B-M-B-B (MG2). Each layer was heated per manufacturer’s instructions to form custom mouthguards for an aluminum arch form using a Scheu Dental MiniSTAR thermal former (Iserlohn, Germany). A 1KHz Impact Force Sensor kit (Loadstar Sensors, Freemont, CA) was used to measure the force of impact delivered by a baseball attached to a pendulum ram at a fixed height. A minimum of 10 cycles per mouthguard or control arch with no mouthguard were measured. ANOVA (post-hoc Tukey) was used to test whether there was a significant difference in either the area under the impact force curve (AuC) or peak values of the impact between the three groups (α=0.05). All statistics were performed using R (version 4.1.2).
Results: Results showed significant differences between mouthguards for both AuC (p-value=0.0172, F=4.26) and peak impact force data (p-value=0.0001, F=9.928). Tukey pairwise comparisons show that for the AuC, impact forces for the BMB mouthguard design were lower than using no mouthguard (p-value=0.0128, Fig. 1). For the Peak data, impact force was lower for both the BMB (p-value=0.0008) and BBMBB (p-value=0.0005) mouthguards relative to no guard, but that there was no difference between the two trays themselves (Fig. 2).
Conclusions: Taken in total, these results indicate that while both mouthguards reduced the peak impact force delivered to the arches during a direct baseball strike, the BBMBB design also reduces the total duration of that force intensity.
Methods: Mouthguards were produced using clear splint biocryl polyethylene terephthalate glycol (B) and “Mouthguard Material” ethylene vinyl acetate (M), both from Great Lakes Orthodontics LTD, Tonawanda, NY. Two tray types were made (n=3/group) using different layering configurations: B-M-B (MG1) and B-B-M-B-B (MG2). Each layer was heated per manufacturer’s instructions to form custom mouthguards for an aluminum arch form using a Scheu Dental MiniSTAR thermal former (Iserlohn, Germany). A 1KHz Impact Force Sensor kit (Loadstar Sensors, Freemont, CA) was used to measure the force of impact delivered by a baseball attached to a pendulum ram at a fixed height. A minimum of 10 cycles per mouthguard or control arch with no mouthguard were measured. ANOVA (post-hoc Tukey) was used to test whether there was a significant difference in either the area under the impact force curve (AuC) or peak values of the impact between the three groups (α=0.05). All statistics were performed using R (version 4.1.2).
Results: Results showed significant differences between mouthguards for both AuC (p-value=0.0172, F=4.26) and peak impact force data (p-value=0.0001, F=9.928). Tukey pairwise comparisons show that for the AuC, impact forces for the BMB mouthguard design were lower than using no mouthguard (p-value=0.0128, Fig. 1). For the Peak data, impact force was lower for both the BMB (p-value=0.0008) and BBMBB (p-value=0.0005) mouthguards relative to no guard, but that there was no difference between the two trays themselves (Fig. 2).
Conclusions: Taken in total, these results indicate that while both mouthguards reduced the peak impact force delivered to the arches during a direct baseball strike, the BBMBB design also reduces the total duration of that force intensity.
IMAGES
3830052_File000000.jpg
3830052_File000001.jpg
3830052_File000000.jpg
3830052_File000001.jpg