Fumi Mizuhashi1, Kaoru Koide1, Yuko Watarai1. 1. Department of Removable Prosthodontics, The Nippon Dental University School of Life Dentistry at Niigata Niigata 951-8580, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mouthguard should be worn to decrease orofacial trauma. Custom-made mouthguards are usually fabricated using ethylene vinyl acetate sheet or polyolefin sheet. However, the difference of the characteristics of the mouthguard formed by polyolefin sheet has not been cleared enough. The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of the mouthguard fabricated by polyolefin sheet with the vacuum-forming method and the pressure-forming method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mouthguard sheets of polyolefin (3.0 mm thickness) were formed on working model using a vacuum former and a pressure former. Mouthguard thickness was measured at the central incisor (labial surface) and the first molar (buccal surface). The thickness at the first molar (occlusal surface) was also measured. The mouthguard fit was examined at the right central incisor and the right first molar by investigating the distance between the cervical part of the working model and the fabricated mouthguard. Differences in the mouthguard thickness and mouthguard fit fabricated by the vacuum-forming method and the pressure-forming method were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Mouthguard thickness was different among the measurement parts on both the central incisors and the first molars (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). The mouthguard formed by the pressure-forming method showed smaller thickness on the central incisor (labial surface) than that formed by the vacuum-forming method (P < 0.01). The mouthguard formed by the vacuum-forming method showed smaller thickness on the first molar (buccal and occlusal surface) than that formed by the pressure-forming method (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). The mouthguard fabricated by the pressure-forming method showed greater fit than that fabricated by the vacuum-forming method (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the vacuum-forming method was easy to decrease the mouthguard thickness at the first molar, and the pressure-forming method was easy to decrease the mouthguard thickness at the central incisor but obtain better fit when using polyolefin sheet. IJBT
BACKGROUND: Mouthguard should be worn to decrease orofacial trauma. Custom-made mouthguards are usually fabricated using ethylene vinyl acetate sheet or polyolefin sheet. However, the difference of the characteristics of the mouthguard formed by polyolefin sheet has not been cleared enough. The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of the mouthguard fabricated by polyolefin sheet with the vacuum-forming method and the pressure-forming method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mouthguard sheets of polyolefin (3.0 mm thickness) were formed on working model using a vacuum former and a pressure former. Mouthguard thickness was measured at the central incisor (labial surface) and the first molar (buccal surface). The thickness at the first molar (occlusal surface) was also measured. The mouthguard fit was examined at the right central incisor and the right first molar by investigating the distance between the cervical part of the working model and the fabricated mouthguard. Differences in the mouthguard thickness and mouthguard fit fabricated by the vacuum-forming method and the pressure-forming method were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Mouthguard thickness was different among the measurement parts on both the central incisors and the first molars (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). The mouthguard formed by the pressure-forming method showed smaller thickness on the central incisor (labial surface) than that formed by the vacuum-forming method (P < 0.01). The mouthguard formed by the vacuum-forming method showed smaller thickness on the first molar (buccal and occlusal surface) than that formed by the pressure-forming method (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). The mouthguard fabricated by the pressure-forming method showed greater fit than that fabricated by the vacuum-forming method (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the vacuum-forming method was easy to decrease the mouthguard thickness at the first molar, and the pressure-forming method was easy to decrease the mouthguard thickness at the central incisor but obtain better fit when using polyolefin sheet. IJBT