Mouthguard use in Australian football

Influence of wearing mouthguards on performance among athletes: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

While the use of mouthguards is well established to prevent orofacial and dental trauma occurrence, limited evidence exists regarding their influence on athletic performance. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the effect of wearing mouthguards on athletic performance.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

An extensive search was performed in the databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library for studies published up to August 2022. Only peer-reviewed studies involving humans in vivo and investigating the use of mouthguards on performance among athletes were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

The initial query yielded 4785 citations, of which 41 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 852 athletes. Overall, wearing mouthguards was found to improve athletic performance compared to the control group (without mouthguards). Custom-made mouthguards were found to be more effective in enhancing athletic performance compared to other types of mouthguards.

CONCLUSIONS

Wearing mouthguards should be advocated by athletes not only for the prevention of orofacial and dental trauma but also for their potential improvements in athletic performance in specific actions. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting these findings due to the variability in outcome measures and the lack of important methodological details.

Determinants for traumatic orofacial injuries in sport: Extrinsic factors in a scoping review

BACKGROUND/AIM

Sports practices carry a risk for orofacial injuries and, to avoid them, preventive measures are necessary. The aim of this study was to investigate a web of extrinsic determinants for orofacial trauma in sports.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Through a scoping review, eight extrinsic risk factors for sports-related orofacial trauma emerged from the thematic analysis. These were sports modality, sports philosophy, competition rules, level of competition, accessory equipment, environmental conditions, acting regimen, pitch conditions, and human resources. The data collection was conducted on seven databases, using terms based on health science descriptors and keywords related to orofacial trauma and sports.

RESULTS

From the 1155 articles found, 157 were selected based on eligibility criteria and classified according to the mentioned factors. After the full reading of the articles, the most cited risk factor was sports modality while acting regimen and environmental factors were the least mentioned. Therefore, a scheme following the web of determinants was constructed with the purpose of establishing a risk profile, which was based on the interactions between the determinants and on the frequency that they were mentioned as contributors to injury. From this, it was observed that each traumatic event is possibly a result of the interrelationships among the eight suggested determinants.

CONCLUSION

Sports modality was the most cited extrinsic determinant observed in the literature, while environmental conditions and acting regimen were the least cited. In addition, more than establishing the determinants, it is necessary to comprehend how they relate, once preventive strategies should intercede on these relations, to help reduce sports injuries.

Evaluation of Knowledge, Awareness, and Occurrence of Dental Injuries in Participant Children during Sports in New Delhi: A Pilot Study

Aim

To evaluate the occurrence of dental injuries in children, the level of knowledge of the participants about preventive measures, and management of dental trauma during sports, in New Delhi.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out among 450 children aged 6 to 16 years. A structured interviewer-guided questionnaire was used to determine the prevalence of oral injuries sustained during sport activities, the use of mouthguard as well as the athlete’s awareness regarding use of mouthguard. The respondents consisted of 313 males (69.6%) and 137 females (30.4%) with a mean age of 12.6 years.

Results

Out of the total participants, 27 (6%) had chipping or fracture of teeth, 25 (5.6%) had soft-tissue laceration, 24 (5.4%) had avulsion of teeth, and 18 (4%) had suffered fracture of jaw/bones. Out of the total participants, 263 (58.4%) knew that it was possible to replant the teeth and 187 (41.6%) did not know that it was possible to replant the teeth. Out of the total participants, 203 (45.1%) did not know what is the best time to put the teeth back in the mouth and 247 (54.9 %) answered in affirmative with variable answer. Of the total participants, 223 (49.6%) answered that they would carry avulsed tooth in water, 94 (20.8%) wrapped in cloth, 57 (12.6%) in mouth/saliva, 9 (2%) in Hanks’ balanced salt solution (HBSS), and 67 (14.8%) answered others. Of the total participants, 321 (71.3%) were aware that mouthguards prevent injury and 129 (28.7%) did not know about mouthguards. Out of the total participants, 94 (20.9%) used mouthguards and 356 (79.1%) had never used mouthguards.

Conclusion

Level of awareness and knowledge about sports-related orofacial injury is very poor among children in New Delhi. Education on prevention of orofacial trauma should be given to the coaches and children. Wearing of mouthguards during sport activities should be compulsory during practice and competition events.

How to cite this article: Goswami M, Kumar P, Bhushan U. Evaluation of Knowledge, Awareness, and Occurrence of Dental Injuries in Participant Children during Sports in New Delhi: A Pilot Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;10(4):373-378.

Big Data in traumatic brain injury; promise and challenges

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a spectrum disease of overwhelming complexity, the research of which generates enormous amounts of structured, semi-structured and unstructured data. This resulting big data has tremendous potential to be mined for valuable information regarding the "most complex disease of the most complex organ". Big data analyses require specialized big data analytics applications, machine learning and artificial intelligence platforms to reveal associations, trends, correlations and patterns not otherwise realized by current analytical approaches. The intersection of potential data sources between experimental TBI and clinical TBI research presents inherent challenges for setting parameters for the generation of common data elements and to mine existing legacy data that would allow highly translatable big data analyses. In order to successfully utilize big data analyses in TBI, we must be willing to accept the messiness of data, collect and store all data and give up causation for correlation. In this context, coupling the big data approach to established clinical and pre-clinical data sources will transform current practices for triage, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis into highly integrated evidence-based patient care.

Mouthguard Use and Awareness of Junior Rugby League Players in the Gold Coast, Australia: A Need for More Education

OBJECTIVE

To investigate knowledge, attitude, and awareness of appropriate mouthguard use, as well as the management of traumatic dental injuries (TDIs).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Community survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred ninety-four junior rugby league players and their coaches in the Gold Coast, Australia.

INTERVENTIONS

Data were collected anonymously during training sessions by means of a survey questionnaire, followed by a presentation on mouthguards and the management of TDIs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Descriptive statistics on the frequency distribution of the demographic characteristics, knowledge, and use of mouthguards as well as the relationships between the type of mouthguard worn and questions related to mouthguard use.

RESULTS

The majority of players surveyed reported wearing a mouthguard (68.2%). Cost (40.1%) and not believing that they work (35.7%) were listed as the main reasons for not doing so. The boil-and-bite type was the most used by players (64.7%). Almost 44% of coaches and 50% of players responded that only a dentist can manage an avulsed tooth, that a tooth had to be reinserted within 15 minutes (40.6% and 21.9%, respectively), and that either water or milk can be used to transport an avulsed tooth to the dentist (100% and 82.2%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Education related to the correct use of mouthguards and the management of TDIs should be ongoing for players, their caregivers, and their coaches and should be required as part of the training of coaches to prevent injury in rugby league.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study found that although the overwhelming majority of junior rugby league coaches encourage the wearing of mouthguards, only two-thirds of the players do so. Players' compliance to wear mouthguards is largely influenced by their perception of efficacy and its comfort. Educational campaigns with involvement of dental practitioners, related to the correct use of mouthguards and the management of TDIs, should be ongoing for players, their caregivers, and their coaches and should also be required as part of the training of coaches.

Mouthguards in Sport Activities

Three systematic reviews were conducted on: (i) the history of mouthguard use in sports; (ii) mouthguard material and construction; and (iii) the effectiveness of mouthguards in preventing orofacial injuries and concussions. Retrieval databases and bibliographies were explored to find studies using specific key words for each topic. The first recorded use of mouthguards was by boxers, and in the 1920s professional boxing became the first sport to require mouthguards. Advocacy by the American Dental Association led to the mandating of mouthguards for US high school football in the 1962 season. Currently, the US National Collegiate Athletic Association requires mouthguards for four sports (ice hockey, lacrosse, field hockey and football). However, the American Dental Association recommends the use of mouthguards in 29 sports/exercise activities. Mouthguard properties measured in various studies included shock-absorbing capability, hardness, stiffness (indicative of protective capability), tensile strength, tear strength (indicative of durability) and water absorption. Materials used for mouthguards included: (i) polyvinylacetate-polyethylene or ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer; (ii) polyvinylchloride; (iii) latex rubber; (iv) acrylic resin; and (v) polyurethane. Latex rubber was a popular material used in early mouthguards but it has lower shock absorbency, lower hardness and less tear and tensile strength than EVA or polyurethane. Among the more modern materials, none seems to stand out as superior to another since the characteristics of all the modern materials can be manipulated to provide a range of favourable characteristics. Impact studies have shown that compared with no mouthguard, mouthguards composed of many types of materials reduce the number of fractured teeth and head acceleration. In mouthguard design, consideration must be given to the nature of the collision (hard or soft objects) and characteristics of the mouth (e.g. brittle incisors, more rugged occusal surfaces of molars, soft gingiva). Laminates with different shock absorbing and stress distributing (stiffness) capability may be one way to accommodate these factors.Studies comparing mouthguard users with nonusers have examined different sports, employed a variety of study designs and used widely-varying injury case definitions. Prior to the 1980s, most studies exhibited relatively low methodological quality. Despite these issues, meta-analyses indicated that the risk of an orofacial sports injury was 1.6-1.9 times higher when a mouthguard was not worn. However, the evidence that mouthguards protect against concussion was inconsistent, and no conclusion regarding the effectiveness of mouthguards in preventing concussion can be drawn at present. Mouthguards should continue to be used in sport activities where there is significant risk of orofacial injury.

Should football players wear custom fitted mouthguards? Results from a group randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Head/orofacial (H/O) injuries are common in Australian rules football. Mouthguards are widely promoted to prevent these injuries, in spite of the lack of formal evidence for their effectiveness.

DESIGN

The Australian football injury prevention project was a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of mouthguards for preventing H/O injuries in these players.

SETTING AND SUBJECTS

Twenty three teams (301 players) were recruited from the largest community football league in Australia.

INTERVENTION

Teams were randomly allocated to either the MG: custom made mouthguard or C: control (usual mouthguard behaviours) study arm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All injuries, participation in training and games, and mouthguard use were monitored over the 2001 playing season. Injury rates were calculated as the number of injuries per 1000 person hours of playing time. Adjusted incidence rate ratios were obtained from Poisson regression models.

RESULTS

Players in both study arms wore mouthguards, though it is unlikely that many controls wore custom made ones. Wearing rates were higher during games than training. The overall rate of H/O injury was 2.7 injuries per 1000 exposure hours. The rate of H/O injury was higher during games than training. The adjusted H/O injury incidence rate ratio was 0.56 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.97) for MG versus C during games and training, combined.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant protective effect of custom made mouthguards, relative to usual mouthguard use, during games. However, the control players still wore mouthguards throughout the majority of games and this could have diluted the effect.

Community football players' attitudes towards protective equipment--a pre-season measure

BACKGROUND

The Australian football injury prevention project (AFIPP) was a randomised controlled trial examining the effects of protective equipment on injury rates in Australian Football.

OBJECTIVE

To present the results of the AFIPP baseline survey of community football players' attitudes towards protective equipment.

METHODS

Teams of players were recruited from the largest community football league in Victoria, Australia, during the 2001 playing season; 301 players were enrolled in the study and all were surveyed before the season began about their attitudes towards protective headgear and mouthguards.

RESULTS

Almost three quarters of the players (73.6%) reported wearing mouthguards during the previous playing season (year 2000) compared with only 2.1% wearing headgear. The most common reasons for not wearing headgear and mouthguards (in non-users) were: "I don't like wearing it" (headgear: 44.8%; mouthguards: 30.6%), and "It is too uncomfortable" (headgear: 40.7%; mouthguards: 45.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The higher mouthguard usage reflects the favourable attitudes towards mouthguards by Australian football players generally. Similarly, the low headgear usage reflects the low acceptance of this form of protection in this sport. Further research should be directed towards establishing the reasons why players seem to believe that headgear plays a role in injury prevention yet few wear it.

Nigerian dentists' knowledge and attitudes towards mouthguard protection

The objective of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes of Nigerian dentists towards mouthguard protection. A pre-tested 15-item, one-page questionnaire was distributed to 185 dentists practising in different parts of the country with government hospitals or private establishments, by 'hand-delivery' system. Filled and returned forms were 170 (response rate of 92%). The period of the survey was between April and August 2003. Dental graduates from the different dental schools in the country responded to this survey. About 49% of the respondents indicated having only classroom lectures on mouthguards during their undergraduate trainings, 11% said they had some laboratory sessions in addition while no form of education on mouthguards was received by 40%. About 82% had never recommended mouthguard protection for athletic patients, and the major reason was no formal training in the subject. Only 58.5% were familiar with the different types of mouthguards, 75.9% would not be able to supervise or fabricate mouthguards and 50.6% would prefer custom-made mouthguard for their athletic patients. About 84% felt the current training on mouthguards in Nigerian dental schools is inadequate. Over 98% agreed that mouthguard usage in contact sports should be encouraged with the involvement of the dentists. The knowledge and attitudes of the respondents towards mouthguard protection did not vary significantly across years of postqualification from dental schools as well as the professional status of the dentists (P > 0.05). Although Nigerian dentists support mouthguard protection in contact sports and want to be involved in the provision of mouthguards for athletes, their knowledge of the protective device is inadequate. There is need for attention to be given to this subject in the undergraduate curricula of our dental schools.

Do community football players wear allocated protective equipment? Descriptive results from a randomised controlled trial

Before protective equipment can be adopted as an effective sports safety intervention, its protective effects in reducing the incidence and severity of injury need to be demonstrated, Importantly, it also needs to be well accepted by the players. The Australian Football Injury Prevention Project (AFIPP) was a large scale community-based randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of headgear and mouthguards in preventing head/neck/dental injuries in Australian Football. A subcomponent of this study was to assess the extent to which community football players complied with the requirement to wear protective headgear and/or mouthguards, as this equipment is not compulsory in this sport. Three hundred and one community football players from 23 teams were randomly allocated to one of three protective equipment intervention arms or one control arm. Protective equipment usage was measured by a primary data collector at each training and game session during the 2001 playing season. Mouthguard use was higher than headgear use, with the highest usage for both being measured during games rather than training. Although many players use mouthguards, particularly in games, most do not wear headgear. Given the low adoption of headgear, other strategies to prevent head injuries need further investigation.

A pilot study of the attitudes of Australian Rules footballers towards protective headgear

Despite a relatively high risk of injury to participants of Australian Rules football, very few players report wearing protective equipment. The aim of this paper is to describe the results of a pilot survey of the attitudes of community-level Australian Rules football players towards protective headgear and the risk of head injury. Seventy players from four purposefully chosen clubs in metropolitan Melbourne completed a self-report questionnaire at the end of the 2000-playing season. Almost all players (91.4%) reported they did not wear protective headgear during the 2000 season. Non-headgear users said that headgear was too uncomfortable (47.4%) and they didn't like it (42.1%). However, 80.0% of non-users said they would wear it if it prevented injury. The major motivation for wearing headgear was to prevent injury. Players considered rugby, boxing and driving a car, to be associated with a higher-risk of head injury than Australian Rules football. As a group, the players perceived the risk of head injury in Australian Rules football to be low to moderate when compared to other sports and activities. This partially explains why so few players wore protective headgear. Repeat surveys on a larger sample should be conducted to further understand the attitudes towards protective headgear and perceptions of risk in community-level Australian football players.

Oro-facial injury and mouthguard usage by athletes in Nigeria

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent of awareness concerning mouthguard use for sports as well as the amount and type of oro-facial trauma associated with sporting activities among Nigerian athletes.

DESIGN

A questionnaire survey.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was completed by 273 athletes (91% completion rate) who participated in the National Sports festival in May 2002 in Benin City, Nigeria. The sample was representative of all the 36 states in Nigeria including the Federal capital territory, Abuja. Descriptive statistics were employed and the data were further analysed using the chi-square test.

RESULTS

Awareness concerning mouthguards was claimed by 226 (82.8%) of the athletes but significantly fewer athletes who claimed awareness of the devices were using them. Only 93 (41.2%) of this mouthguard-aware group knew of the three types of mouthguard available. Of all the respondents, 131 (48.0%) believed that wearing mouthguards would reduce the prevalence and/or severity of oro-facial injuries during sports. In all, 158 (57.9%) of them had one form of oro-facial injury or the other with contact sports accounting for most of them (78.5%) while 21.5% resulted from non-contact events. The prevalence of oro-facial injuries was significantly lower while wearing mouth protectors.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of the athletes claimed awareness of mouthguards, less than one-third used them. Over half of the athletes were not sure that mouthguards could reduce the prevalence and/or severity of oro-facial injuries. There is need to educate the athletes more concerning mouthguards.

Use of mouthguards by basketball players in Victoria, Australia

Basketball is a popular sport in Australia. Although orofacial injuries are common, mouthguard (MG) wear in basketball appears to be low. The purposes of this study were: to measure mouthguard wear by basketball players before and after a promotional intervention; to assess players' knowledge of the value of mouthguards for prevention of injury; and to describe their experience of orofacial injury. Two questionnaires (baseline and follow-up) were administered to a convenience sample of 496 basketball players in Victoria, Australia. Players recruited were youths (12-15-year olds, n = 208) and adults (18 years and over, n = 288), from all basketball levels (social to elite). Completion of the baseline questionnaire was followed immediately by an intervention comprising written and verbal information, a mouthguard blank and instructions on mouthguard construction. The follow-up questionnaire was mailed to all respondents 10-12 weeks later; 135 youths (65%) and 157 adults (54%) completed this. Mouthguard wear at baseline was low but was more frequent at games (62%) than at training (25%). Despite 90% of players acknowledging the protective value of a mouthguard, wear by youths did not increase following the intervention, and wear by adults increased by only 14% for training and 10% at games. Previous orofacial injury was recorded at baseline by 23% of players, but few had requested compensation from Basketball Australia (youths, 17%; adults, 30%). Two predictor variables were statistically identified as related to mouthguard wear: previous orofacial injury and age group. Mouthguard wear was significantly more frequent amongst players with previous injury; such players were 2.76 times more likely to be wearers than those without previous injury. Youths were 2.31 times more likely to wear mouthguards than adults. Only 34 players (12% of respondents at follow-up) had a mouthguard constructed from the blank provided. Although youth and adult groups differed, the overall extent of mouthguard use was disappointingly low. Despite wide recognition of mouthguard value, the intervention had little effect on promoting their use.