AIM: To evaluate the influence of different types of mouthguard (MG) on physical performance of female soccer players. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample was composed of 25 female soccer players from 'Guarani Futebol Clube', age range 18-22 years. For data collection, two tests were performed: agility test (shuttle run) and aerobic capacity and VO2 (Cooper test), in addition to application of a perception questionnaire after wearing mouthguards during the tests. RESULTS: Data analysis showed that mouthguard type III presented better results in the VO2 and aerobic capacity tests (P < 0.05). In relation to difficulties experienced when wearing MGs, there were no reports of pain, discomfort, or nausea. However, 100% of athletes affirmed that it was not possible to speak with MG type I, 80% (n = 20) with type II, and no athlete found difficulty in speaking when wearing MG type III. Distractions were reported by 35% (n = 6) only when athletes wore MG types I and II. CONCLUSIONS: Among the three types evaluated, the customized MG (type III) presented better results in the athletes' physical performance evaluation, even taking into account physical tests performed without the use of mouthguards.
AIM: To evaluate the influence of different types of mouthguard (MG) on physical performance of female soccer players. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The sample was composed of 25 female soccer players from 'Guarani Futebol Clube', age range 18-22 years. For data collection, two tests were performed: agility test (shuttle run) and aerobic capacity and VO2 (Cooper test), in addition to application of a perception questionnaire after wearing mouthguards during the tests. RESULTS: Data analysis showed that mouthguard type III presented better results in the VO2 and aerobic capacity tests (P < 0.05). In relation to difficulties experienced when wearing MGs, there were no reports of pain, discomfort, or nausea. However, 100% of athletes affirmed that it was not possible to speak with MG type I, 80% (n = 20) with type II, and no athlete found difficulty in speaking when wearing MG type III. Distractions were reported by 35% (n = 6) only when athletes wore MG types I and II. CONCLUSIONS: Among the three types evaluated, the customized MG (type III) presented better results in the athletes' physical performance evaluation, even taking into account physical tests performed without the use of mouthguards.
Authors: Taciana Marco Ferraz Caneppele; Alessandra B Borges; Daniele Masterson Pereira; Alessandra Almeida Fagundes; Tatiane K S Fidalgo; Luciane C Maia Journal: Sports Med Int Open Date: 2017-09-15
Authors: Adrià Miró; Bernat Buscà; Joan Aguilera-Castells; Jordi Arboix-Alió Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Christian Maurer; Sebastian Heller; Jil-Julia Sure; Daniel Fuchs; Christoph Mickel; Eileen M Wanke; David A Groneberg; Daniela Ohlendorf Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bernat Buscà; Daniel Moreno-Doutres; Javier Peña; Jose Morales; Mònica Solana-Tramunt; Joan Aguilera-Castells Journal: J Exerc Sci Fit Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 3.103