OBJECTIVES: To compare transmitted forces through ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguard material and the same EVA material with gas inclusions in the form of a closed cell foam. METHOD: EVA mouthguard materials with and without foam gas inclusions and 4 mm thick were impacted with a constant force from an impact pendulum. Various porosity levels in the foam materials were produced by 1%, 5%, and 10% by weight foaming agent. The forces transmitted through the EVA after energy absorption by the test materials were measured with a force sensor and compared. RESULTS: Only minor non-significant differences in transmitted forces through the EVA with and without foam were shown. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of gas in the form of a closed cell foam in 4 mm thick EVA mouthguard materials did not improve the impact performance of the EVA mouthguard material.
OBJECTIVES: To compare transmitted forces through ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguard material and the same EVA material with gas inclusions in the form of a closed cell foam. METHOD:EVA mouthguard materials with and without foam gas inclusions and 4 mm thick were impacted with a constant force from an impact pendulum. Various porosity levels in the foam materials were produced by 1%, 5%, and 10% by weight foaming agent. The forces transmitted through the EVA after energy absorption by the test materials were measured with a force sensor and compared. RESULTS: Only minor non-significant differences in transmitted forces through the EVA with and without foam were shown. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of gas in the form of a closed cell foam in 4 mm thick EVA mouthguard materials did not improve the impact performance of the EVA mouthguard material.
Authors: Joseph J Knapik; Stephen W Marshall; Robyn B Lee; Salima S Darakjy; Sarah B Jones; Timothy A Mitchener; Georgia G delaCruz; Bruce H Jones Journal: Sports Med Date: 2007 Impact factor: 11.136