Fumi Mizuhashi1, Kaoru Koide, Mutsumi Takahashi. 1. Department of Removable Prosthodontics, The Nippon Dental University School of Life Dentistry at Niigata, Niigata, Japan.
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this study was to examine differences in mouthguard thickness according to the method used to form the mouthguard sheet in a combination vacuum-pressure former. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material used in this study was a mouthguard sheet of 3.8-mm ethylene vinyl acetate. Three forming methods were used: vacuum-forming, vacuum-pressure-forming, and pressure-forming. The sheets were formed when heating causing them to displace 15 mm from baseline. We measured mouthguard thickness at the labial surface of the central incisor, the buccal surface of the first molar, and the occlusal surface of the first molar. Differences in thickness in different regions of mouthguards formed under different conditions were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni method. RESULTS: We found that mouthguard thickness differed in different regions of the central incisors and the first molars (P < 0.01). The incisal (cusp) region was thinner than the cervical region. There were significant differences in the thicknesses of vacuum-formed mouthguards and vacuum-pressure-formed mouthguards (P < 0.05), with the vacuum-forming method resulting in thinner guards than the vacuum-pressure-forming method. Mouthguard thickness at the first molar did not differ according to the forming method. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that mouthguard thickness at the anterior teeth varies with different forming methods. This information is important when selecting a mouthguard-forming method.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to examine differences in mouthguard thickness according to the method used to form the mouthguard sheet in a combination vacuum-pressure former. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The material used in this study was a mouthguard sheet of 3.8-mm ethylene vinyl acetate. Three forming methods were used: vacuum-forming, vacuum-pressure-forming, and pressure-forming. The sheets were formed when heating causing them to displace 15 mm from baseline. We measured mouthguard thickness at the labial surface of the central incisor, the buccal surface of the first molar, and the occlusal surface of the first molar. Differences in thickness in different regions of mouthguards formed under different conditions were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni method. RESULTS: We found that mouthguard thickness differed in different regions of the central incisors and the first molars (P < 0.01). The incisal (cusp) region was thinner than the cervical region. There were significant differences in the thicknesses of vacuum-formed mouthguards and vacuum-pressure-formed mouthguards (P < 0.05), with the vacuum-forming method resulting in thinner guards than the vacuum-pressure-forming method. Mouthguard thickness at the first molar did not differ according to the forming method. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that mouthguard thickness at the anterior teeth varies with different forming methods. This information is important when selecting a mouthguard-forming method.