| Literature DB >> 32899368 |
Hae Joo Nam1, Joon-Hee Lee2, Dae-Seok Hong1, Hyun Chul Jung2.
Abstract
The present study examined the influence of a customized mouthguard on body alignment and balance performance in professional basketball players. Twenty-three professional male basketball players, aged 25.8 ± 8.6 years old, were voluntarily assigned to participate in three treatments, including no treatment (no mouthguard), acute treatment (wearing a mouthguard), and repeated treatments (8 weeks follow-up). Body alignment status, such as spinal and pelvic posture and balance performance, were measured at each time point using a 3D Formetric III (Germany) and a postural control device (Posturomed 202, Germany), respectively. A repeated MANOVA analysis with a Bonferroni post hoc test was applied, and the adjusted p-value was set at 0.02. No significant treatment effect was observed in body alignment (p = 0.302). However, univariate analysis showed a significant difference in pelvic torsion, where it was decreased after acute and repeated mouthguard treatments compared to no treatment (p < 0.001). Kyphotic angle also increased significantly following 8 weeks of treatment compared to no treatment (p < 0.001) and acute treatment (p < 0.002). There was a significant treatment effect on balance performance (p < 0.001). Both static and dynamic balance performance improved following 8 weeks of treatment (p < 0.001). Our study revealed that a customized mouthguard provides a benefit to balance performance. Notably, repeated treatment impacts on balance performance more than acute treatment. Although our findings did not show a significant effect on body alignment, some positive results, such as pelvic torsion and kyphotic angle, may provide substantial information for developing future longitudinal studies with large sample sizes.Entities:
Keywords: basketball; body alignment; dynamic balance; mouthguard; static balance
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32899368 PMCID: PMC7504132 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17176431
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1An example of a customized mouthguard.
Figure 2Posture for Formetric III testing and anatomical points (2006).
Body alignment variables.
| Variables | Definition | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Torsion Trunk | Left and right rotation of trunk | [°] |
| Trunk Imbalance | From the VP to vertical line and angle of connect line from VP to DM | [°] |
| Trunk Inclination | Anterior and posterior inclination of trunk in the side position | [°] |
| Pelvic Tilt | Length of both pelvic tilts | [mm] |
| Pelvic Torsion | Contrary anterior and posterior torsion of both pelvic sides | [°] |
| Pelvic Rotation | Left and right rotation of both pelvic sides | [°] |
| Kyphotic Angle | Maximum kyphotic angle in the thoracic vertebrae part | [°] |
| Lordotic Angle | Maximum lordotic angle in the lumbar vertebrae part | [°] |
| Lateral Deviation | Lateral deviation length to connection line of VP and DM | [mm] |
| Surface Rotation | Surface rotation angle to connection line of VP and DM | [°] |
Changes in body alignment condition (mean ± SD).
| Variables | NT | AT | RT | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trunk torsion [°] | 2.0 ± 6.81 | 1.6 ± 4.11 | 3.0 ± 4.43 | 0.782 | 0.451 |
| Trunk inclination [°] | 2.4 ± 2.92 | 1.8 ± 2.38 | 1.5 ± 1.83 | 2.928 | 0.075 |
| Trunk imbalance [°] | −0.3 ± 1.17 | −0.3 ± 0.77 | 0.04 ± 0.67 | 2.628 | 0.098 |
| Pelvic tilt [mm] | −0.7 ± 7.96 | 0.1 ± 6.62 | 0.3 ± 4.33 | 0.423 | 0.580 |
| Pelvic torsion [°] | 4.3 ± 2.93a | 2.9 ± 2.38b | 2.1 ± 2.01b | 9.569 | <0.001 |
| Pelvis rotation [°] | −1.8 ± 4.36 | −0.5 ± 2.96 | −0.3 ± 2.09 | 3.094 | 0.063 |
| Kyphotic angle [°] | 37.3 ± 6.37a | 38.6 ± 6.36a | 41.9 ± 5.99b | 13.197 | <0.001 |
| Lordotic angle [°] | 31.7 ± 8.84 | 33.4 ± 8.56 | 34.3 ± 9.12 | 3.223 | 0.072 |
| Surface rotation max [°] | 0.2 ± 7.60 | −2.0 ± 5.00 | −1.0 ± 4.07 | 1.979 | 0.169 |
| Lateral deviation max [mm] | 2.4 ± 9.22 | 1.9 ± 7.52 | 2.8 ± 6.30 | 0.314 | 0.675 |
Note. Different letters indicate a significant difference between treatments. NT, no treatment; AT, acute treatment; RT, repeated treatment.
Changes in static and dynamic balance performance (mean ± SD).
| Variables | NT | AT | RT | F-Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Static | RF X axis | 1368.4 ± 812.93a | 592.2 ± 477.59b | 327.0 ± 211.19c | 33.817 | <0.001 |
| RF Y axis | 425.1 ± 339.77a | 190.3 ± 168.24b | 327.0 ± 211.19a | 7.665 | 0.004 | |
| Sum of RF X + Y axis | 1502.4 ± 887.03a | 660.3 ± 525.93b | 374.8 ± 224.90c | 33.044 | <0.001 | |
| LF X axis | 1619.9 ± 1137.99a | 504.0 ± 355.42b | 258.4 ± 191.59c | 31.606 | <0.001 | |
| LF Y axis | 390.3 ± 305.74a | 155.7 ± 94.36b | 99.3 ± 52.53c | 20.193 | <0.001 | |
| Sum of LF X + Y axis | 1738.8 ± 1179.47a | 563.2 ± 370.38b | 300.2 ± 199.55c | 33.046 | <0.001 | |
| Dynamic | RF X axis | 1164.6 ± 508.36a | 660.0 ± 285.47b | 327.0 ± 211.19c | 42.657 | <0.001 |
| RF Y axis | 446.8 ± 172.96a | 363.8 ± 163.83a | 272.0 ± 122.69b | 16.306 | <0.001 | |
| Sum of RF X + Y axis | 1400.2 ± 549.12a | 847.0 ± 352.71b | 595.6 ± 208.65c | 40.962 | <0.001 | |
| LF X axis | 1280.0 ± 680.85a | 669.6 ± 363.73b | 412.0 ± 214.88c | 34.069 | <0.001 | |
| LF Y axis | 409.5 ± 180.06a | 306.0 ± 128.76a | 261.8 ± 106.02b | 10.670 | 0.001 | |
| Sum of LF X + Y axis | 1449.3 ± 710.18a | 819.6 ± 398.35b | 562.8 ± 251.46c | 32.918 | <0.001 | |
Note. RF, right foot; LF, left foot; NT, no treatment; AT, acute treatment; RT, repeated treatment. Different letters indicate a significant difference between treatments.