Impact energy absorption of three mouthguard materials in three environments

Impact Absorption Power of Polyolefin Fused Filament Fabrication 3D-Printed Sports Mouthguards: In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND/AIM

This study aims to evaluate and compare the impact absorption capacities of thermoformed ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguards and 3D-printed polyolefin mouthguards used in sports dentistry applications. The objective is to determine whether 3D-printed polyolefin mouthguards offer superior impact toughness compared to traditional EVA mouthguards commonly used in sports settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six material samples were assessed: five pressure-formed EVA mouthguards (PolyShok, Buffalo Dental, Erkoflex, Proform, and Drufosoft) and one 3D-printed synthetic polymer (polyolefin). The materials were evaluated using a modified American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D256 Test Method A for Izod pendulum impact resistance of plastics. Polyolefin samples were 3D-printed using fused filament fabrication (FFF) technology. Notably, the FFF process included samples printed with notches placed either parallel or perpendicular to the build direction. This orientation served as a study factor, allowing for comparison of material behavior under different printing conditions. Impact testing was conducted using an Izod impact tester to assess the materials' performance under controlled impact conditions.

RESULTS

The study achieved a high power (1.0) in power analysis, indicating strong sensitivity to detect significant differences. Among molded materials, PolyShok showed significantly lower impact toughness compared to others (p = 0.06). The mean impact absorption of EVA materials was 5.4 ± 0.3 kJ/m2, significantly lower than polyolefin materials, which demonstrated 12.9 ± 0.7 kJ/m2 and superior performance (p = 0.0). Horizontal-notched polyolefin samples exhibited higher impact strength compared to vertical-notched samples (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

3D-printed polyolefin mouthguards exhibited significantly higher impact toughness than thermoformed EVA mouthguards. While EVA materials demonstrated structural robustness, their lower impact resistance and observed tearing in other test specimens suggest the need for alternative testing standards to better reflect real-world conditions. 3D-printed mouthguards fabricated with build orientations perpendicular to the direction of impact demonstrate significantly enhanced impact absorption. Further research into manufacturing methods and testing protocols is recommended to optimize mouthguard performance under impact scenarios.

A Shear-Stiffening Mouthguard with Excellent Shock Absorption Capability and Remoldability via a Dynamic Dual Network

Mouthguards are used to reduce injuries and the probability of them to orofacial tissues when impacted during sports. However, the usage of a mouthguard is low due to the discomfort caused by the thickness of the mouthguard. Herein, we have constructed a dynamic dual network to fabricate a shear-stiffening mouthguard with remoldability, which are called remoldable shear-stiffening mouthguards (RSSMs). Based on diboron/oxygen dative bonds, RSSMs show a shear-stiffening effect and excellent shock absorption ability, which can absorb more than 90% of the energy of a blank. Even reducing the thickness to half, RSSMs can reduce approximately 25% of the transmitted force and elongate by about 1.6-fold the buffer time compared to commercial mouthguard materials (Erkoflex and Erkoloc-pro). What is more, owing to the dynamic dual network, RSSMs show good remolding performance with unchanged shear-stiffening behavior and impact resistance, which conforms to the existing vacuum thermoforming mode. In addition, RSSMs exhibit stability in artificial saliva and biocompatibility. In conclusion, this work will broaden the range of mouthguard materials and offer a platform to apply shear-stiffening materials to biomedical applications and soft safeguarding devices.

Sports mouthguard overview: Materials, fabrication techniques, existing standards, and future research needs

Sports mouthguards are proven devices that reduce both the probability of and damage to orofacial tissues. While commonly used, clinicians may be unaware of the different sports mouthguard materials, proposed fabrication techniques, design recommendations, and newer digital fabrication methods. An overview of existing sports mouthguard standards is presented. It identifies that identify that the present requirements, while historically chosen in good faith, appear to be arbitrarily selected and not from clinical evidence-based derived data. In addition, identified sports mouthguard heterogeneous testing and data acquisition methods distinguishes that little possibility is afforded for the correlation of results. Furthermore, updated evidence with concussion prevention and/or alleviation is presented with evidence provided by sports mouthguard imbedded technology. The need for continued research is stressed to provide evidence-based data for concussion alleviation/prevention, digital fabrication methods and materials, and clinically based information for the revision of existing standards.

Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Polymeric Materials for Possible Application in Mouthguards

Custom mouthguards are used in various sports disciplines as a protection for teeth, temporomandibular joints, and soft tissues of the oral cavity from impact forces. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the mechanical properties of flexible polymeric 3D-printable materials and to select a material with the most favourable physical properties for making intraoral protectors. Four 3D-printable polymeric materials were selected for the evaluation: IMPRIMO LC IBT (Scheu-Dental, Iserlohn, Germany), Keyortho IBT (EnvisionTEC, Gladbeck, Germany), IBT (Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA), and Ortho IBT (NextDent, Utrecht, Netherlands). A total of 176 samples (44 from each material) was 3D-printed using the stereolitography (SLA) technique. Tensile strength, flexural strength, notch-toughness, Shore hardness, sorption, and solubility tests were conducted. The materials were compared using a series of analyses of variance (one-way ANOVA) with Bonferroni post hoc tests. Statistical analyses were performed with the use of IBM SPSS Statistics 28.0.0 software (IBM, New York, NY, USA). Each material was assigned a score from 1 to 4 depending on the individual test results, and tests were given indexes according to the significance of the parameter in the mouthguard protective function. The number of points obtained by each material in each test was then multiplied by the test index, and the results were tabulated. The material with the highest result among the ones studied-most suitable for the application in mouthguard fabrication-was Keyortho IBT from EnvisionTEC.

Present Status in Polymeric Mouthguards. A Future Area for Additive Manufacturing?

Athletes from contact sports are more prone to orofacial injuries because of the exposure to possible shocks and collisions derived from physical proximity. The use of protector polymeric mouthguards proved to be useful in the prevention of the described injuries. There are different types of mouthguards with varying ranges of protection and prices, but they are all made from polymers and share the same propose: to absorb and dissipate the impact energy resulting from the shocks. As they are used inside the mouth, they should not impair breathing and speaking nor compromise the comfort of the athlete. However, the ideal mouthguard is yet to be created. The choice of the most appropriate polymeric material and the standard required properties have not yet been reported. Regardless of the numerous studies in this field, normalized control parameters for both material characterization and mouthguard fabrication are absent. This paper aims to present a review of the current types of available mouthguards and their properties/characteristics. Moreover, a detailed description of the most common polymers for the fabrication of mouthguards, together with the manufacturing techniques, are discussed.

Maximum impact heights of currently used mouthguards in field hockey

Background/Aim

The effectiveness of mouthguards used in field hockey is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the maximum impact heights between currently used mouthguards in field hockey to prevent dental injury.

Methods

Four boil‐and‐bite mouthguards (Dita, Shock Doctor, SISU, and Stag) and one custom‐made mouthguard (Elysee) were tested for maximum impact height. A hockey ball was released in a tube from increasing heights onto plaster and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) dental models. Models were tested without mouthguard as a control. The experiment was repeated 10 times per mouthguard and for the control on each dental model. The maximum impact height for when the dental model broke was used to calculate the speed. The mouthguards and controls were compared.

Results

The maximum impact heights (median [25%‐75%] in meters) onto plaster dental models were as follows: control 0.23 (0.15‐0.25), Dita 0.35 (0.30‐0.35), Elysee 0.45 (0.34‐0.50), Shock Doctor 0.68 (0.60‐0.74), SISU 0.23 (0.20‐0.26), and Stag 0.35 (0.35‐0.46). The maximum impact height for Shock Doctor was significantly higher than all other mouthguards and the control (all P < .05). The maximum impact heights onto PMMA dental models were as follows: control 2.00 (1.30‐2.50), Dita 3.80 (2.65‐6.95), Elysee 3.30 (2.30‐4.20), Shock Doctor 6.20 (2.80‐8.10), SISU 2.60 (1.90‐3.15), and Stag 3.90 (1.25‐5.15). The maximum impact height for Shock Doctor was significantly higher than for SISU, Stag, and the control (all P < .05), but did not differ significantly from Dita (P = .43) and Elysee (P = .12).

Conclusion

Shock Doctor had the highest maximum impact height compared to the other mouthguards and appears to be the most effective mouthguard tested in this study.