Movement of model position just before vacuum forming to ensure mouthguard thickness: Part 2 Effect of model moving distance

Effective thermoforming method for maintaining mouthguard thickness with a circular sheet using a circular frame

BACKGROUND/AIM

Mouthguard thickness is important to prevent oral and facial trauma during sports. The aim of this study was to establish an effective thermoforming method for maintaining mouthguard thickness with a circular sheet using a circular frame.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mouthguards were thermoformed using 4.0-mm-thick ethylene vinyl acetate sheets and a vacuum forming machine. Each sheet was pinched at the top and bottom and stabilized by a circular frame. Two heating conditions were compared: (1) condition N, where the sheet was formed when it sagged 10 mm below the level of the sheet frame at the top of the post, and (2) condition L, where the sheet frame was lowered 50 mm below the ordinary level and heated, and the sheet was formed when it sagged 10 mm. In each heating method, two forming conditions were compared: (1) when the sheet softened, the sheet frame was lowered and formed (condition C; N-C, L-C), and (2) after the sheet frame was lowered, the model was moved forward 20 mm and then formed (condition MP; N-MP, L-MP). Six mouthguards were fabricated for each condition. Thickness differences due to heating conditions and forming conditions were analyzed by the two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni's multiple comparison test.

RESULTS

At the incisal edge and at the labial and buccal surfaces, significant differences were observed among all conditions, and the thicknesses were in the order N-C < L-C < N-MP <L-MP. At the cusp, significant differences were not observed depending on the heating conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

The thermoforming method with a circular sheet using a circular frame did not maintain a sufficient thickness only by the method of moving the model position just before formation. However, the results suggest that a single-layer mouthguard with a labial thickness of 3 mm or more could be fabricated by applying the method of lowering the sheet frame and heating the sheet.

Examination of thermoforming techniques to secure mouthguard thickness of the labial and buccal sides with a single sheet: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND/AIM

Mouthguards must have an appropriate thickness to prevent oral trauma during sports. The aim of this study was to establish a thermoforming technique to secure the labial and buccal thicknesses of the mouthguard with a single sheet.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mouthguards were thermoformed using 4.0-mm thick sheets manufactured by extrusion molding, a plaster model, and a vacuum forming machine. Two sheet installation conditions were compared: the sheet extrusion direction was either parallel (P) or vertical (V) to the model's centerline. In each extrusion direction, two forming conditions were compared: (1) the sheet was formed when it sagged 15-mm below the sheet frame at the top of the post (control group; C-P, C-V); and (2) the sheet frame was lowered 50-mm below the ordinary level and heated, the frame was lowered when it sagged 15-mm, and the model was moved forward 20-mm before formation (experimental group; E-P, E-V). Difference in thickness (incisal edge, labial surface, cusp, and buccal surface) due to sheet extrusion direction and forming conditions were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni method.

RESULTS

At all measurement sites, a significant difference in thickness depending on the sheet extrusion direction was observed in the experimental group (p < .01), but not in the control group. Difference in thickness depending on the forming condition was observed at all measurement sites, and the thickness was in the order C-P, C-V < E-P < E-V. Thicknesses of E-P and E-V were 3.01 ± 0.03 mm and 3.25 ± 0.02 mm on the labial surface, and 2.81 ± 0.02 mm and 3.02 ± 0.02 mm on the buccal surface.

CONCLUSIONS

It was possible to obtain 3 mm or more thickness on the labial and buccal sides with a single sheet by adjusting the sheet extrusion direction and the heating method of the sheet, and by applying the thermoforming method where the model is moved forward just before formation.

Effects on the thickness of single-layer mouthguards with different model positions on the forming table and different sheet frame shapes for the forming device

BACKGROUND/AIM

Effectiveness and safety of mouthguards are greatly affected by their thickness. The aim of this study was to clarify the influence of the frame shape of the forming device on how the model position on the forming table affects the anterior and posterior mouthguard thickness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mouthguards were thermoformed using 4.0-mm-thick ethylene-vinyl-acetate sheets and a vacuum forming device. Square sheets were fixed with the square frame of the forming device. Circular sheets were fixed to the forming device with a circular frame. The model was placed with its anterior rim positioned 40, 30, 20, or 10 mm from the front of the forming table. The model position was marked on the forming table so that it was constant under each condition. Six mouthguards were fabricated for each condition. Mouthguard thicknesses of the incisal edge, labial and buccal surfaces, and the cusp were measured. Differences in the rate of thickness reduction due to frame shapes and model positions were analyzed by two-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

Difference in the thickness reduction rate depending on the frame shape was observed on the labial and buccal surfaces, and it was significantly greater with the circular frame than with the square frame (p < .01). In the anterior region, the thickness reduction rate tended to increase as the model position was moved toward the front of the forming table. The thickness reduction rate of the posterior portion was lowest when the model's molar was positioned at the center of the forming table.

CONCLUSIONS

The labial thickness of the mouthguard was not affected by the frame shape if the distance from the model to the frame was larger than the model height. However, the buccal thickness was thinner with the circular frame than with the square frame regardless of the model position.

Effect on thickness of a single-layer mouthguard of positional relationship between suction port of the vacuum forming device and the model

BACKGROUND/AIM

Wearing a mouthguard reduces the risk of sport-related injuries, but the thickness has a large effect on its efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect on the thickness of a single-layer mouthguard of the positional relationship between the suction port of the vacuum forming device and the model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethylene-vinyl-acetate sheets of 4.0-mm-thickness and a vacuum forming machine were used. Two hard plaster models were prepared: Model A was 25-mm at the anterior teeth and 20-mm at the molar, and model B was trimmed so the bucco-lingual width was half that of model A. Three model positions on the forming table were examined: (a) P20, where the model anterior rim was located in front of the suction port, (b) P30, where the model anterior rim and front edge of the suction port were close, and (c) P43, where the model anterior rim and palatal rim were located on the suction port. Six mouthguards were fabricated for each condition. Thickness differences due to model form and model position were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thickness differences due to model form were observed at the incisal edge and labial surface, and model A was significantly thicker than model B in P43 (P<.01). The thickness of the incisal edge and labial surface was significantly greatest in P43 for model A, but in P30 for model B.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of the model position on the forming table on suppressing the labial thickness reduction of the mouthguard depended on the bucco-lingual width of the model. It is important to position the model anterior rim away from the sheet frame if the bucco-lingual width of the model is large and to place the model anterior rim in front of the suction port if the width is small.