Difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order
Background/Aim Mouthguard thickness should be maintained to prevent oral trauma by protecting the teeth and the surrounding soft tissue. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order. Materials and methods The mouthguard sheets...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Dental traumatology 2021-06, Vol.37 (3), p.497-501 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 501 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 497 |
| container_title | Dental traumatology |
| container_volume | 37 |
| creator | Mizuhashi, Fumi Koide, Kaoru Watarai, Yuko |
| description | Background/Aim
Mouthguard thickness should be maintained to prevent oral trauma by protecting the teeth and the surrounding soft tissue. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order.
Materials and methods
The mouthguard sheets used in this study were 2.0 mm and 3.0 mm ethylene‐vinyl acetate. The sheets were pressure‐formed using a pressure former, and the laminated mouthguard was fabricated. Two laminate conditions were examined. One condition used the 2.0‐mm sheet for the first layer and the 3.0‐mm sheet for the second layer (condition 2F3S) and the other condition used the 3.0‐mm sheet for the first layer and 2.0‐mm sheet for the second layer (condition 3F2S). The first layer was trimmed to cover the labial surface and incisal edge of the anterior teeth and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the posterior teeth. The second layer was formed over the first layer. The mouthguard thickness was measured at the labial surface of the central incisor and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar. Differences in thickness by measurement region of mouthguards formed under different laminate conditions were analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance.
Results
The mouthguard thickness was significantly different at the measured regions of the central incisors and the first molars (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/edt.12644 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2473900166</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2524828451</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4194-1097f36e6558f41df288e6fb85384d697fa1a9a08acf839cc8a3f1aef373bfe3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10E1PwyAYB3BiNG5OD34B08SLHrpBoUCPZpsvyRIvuxNGH7bOvkxoY_btZXbuYCIXyMMv_8AfoVuCxySsCeTtmCScsTM0JBzjOOOpOD-eGePZAF15v8WYcJHhSzSglAqRCDFEi1lhLTioDURFHZW6KmrdQh5VTddu1p12edRuCvNRg_eRNqZxeVGvo7YJYzj5KIzBXaMLq0sPN8d9hJbP8-X0NV68v7xNnxaxYSRjMcGZsJQDT1NpGcltIiVwu5IplSzn4VITnWkstbGSZsZITS3RYKmgKwt0hB762J1rPjvwraoKb6AsdQ1N51XCBM0On-WB3v-h26ZzdXicStKEyUSylAT12CvjGu8dWLVzRaXdXhGsDg2r0LD6aTjYu2Nit6ogP8nfSgOY9OCrKGH_f5Kaz5Z95DdtD4Su</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2524828451</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Mizuhashi, Fumi ; Koide, Kaoru ; Watarai, Yuko</creator><creatorcontrib>Mizuhashi, Fumi ; Koide, Kaoru ; Watarai, Yuko</creatorcontrib><description>Background/Aim
Mouthguard thickness should be maintained to prevent oral trauma by protecting the teeth and the surrounding soft tissue. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order.
Materials and methods
The mouthguard sheets used in this study were 2.0 mm and 3.0 mm ethylene‐vinyl acetate. The sheets were pressure‐formed using a pressure former, and the laminated mouthguard was fabricated. Two laminate conditions were examined. One condition used the 2.0‐mm sheet for the first layer and the 3.0‐mm sheet for the second layer (condition 2F3S) and the other condition used the 3.0‐mm sheet for the first layer and 2.0‐mm sheet for the second layer (condition 3F2S). The first layer was trimmed to cover the labial surface and incisal edge of the anterior teeth and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the posterior teeth. The second layer was formed over the first layer. The mouthguard thickness was measured at the labial surface of the central incisor and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar. Differences in thickness by measurement region of mouthguards formed under different laminate conditions were analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance.
Results
The mouthguard thickness was significantly different at the measured regions of the central incisors and the first molars (p < .01). The thickness at the labial surface of the central incisor and at the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar became statistically significantly larger with the 3F2S condition than that for the 2F3S condition (p < .05 or p < .01).
Conclusions
The thickness of the laminated mouthguard became larger when the sheet thickness of the first layer was greater. It is recommended to use the thicker mouthguard sheet as the first layer when fabricating a laminated mouthguard.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1600-4469</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-9657</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/edt.12644</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33377277</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Acetic acid ; Dentistry ; fabrication ; Headgear ; Incisors ; Injury prevention ; laminate order ; Laminates ; Molars ; mouthguard ; Teeth ; thickness ; Trauma ; Vinyl acetate</subject><ispartof>Dental traumatology, 2021-06, Vol.37 (3), p.497-501</ispartof><rights>2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4194-1097f36e6558f41df288e6fb85384d697fa1a9a08acf839cc8a3f1aef373bfe3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4194-1097f36e6558f41df288e6fb85384d697fa1a9a08acf839cc8a3f1aef373bfe3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4914-211X ; 0000-0002-0699-0637 ; 0000-0003-0935-1045</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fedt.12644$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fedt.12644$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33377277$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mizuhashi, Fumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koide, Kaoru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Watarai, Yuko</creatorcontrib><title>Difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order</title><title>Dental traumatology</title><addtitle>Dent Traumatol</addtitle><description>Background/Aim
Mouthguard thickness should be maintained to prevent oral trauma by protecting the teeth and the surrounding soft tissue. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order.
Materials and methods
The mouthguard sheets used in this study were 2.0 mm and 3.0 mm ethylene‐vinyl acetate. The sheets were pressure‐formed using a pressure former, and the laminated mouthguard was fabricated. Two laminate conditions were examined. One condition used the 2.0‐mm sheet for the first layer and the 3.0‐mm sheet for the second layer (condition 2F3S) and the other condition used the 3.0‐mm sheet for the first layer and 2.0‐mm sheet for the second layer (condition 3F2S). The first layer was trimmed to cover the labial surface and incisal edge of the anterior teeth and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the posterior teeth. The second layer was formed over the first layer. The mouthguard thickness was measured at the labial surface of the central incisor and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar. Differences in thickness by measurement region of mouthguards formed under different laminate conditions were analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance.
Results
The mouthguard thickness was significantly different at the measured regions of the central incisors and the first molars (p < .01). The thickness at the labial surface of the central incisor and at the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar became statistically significantly larger with the 3F2S condition than that for the 2F3S condition (p < .05 or p < .01).
Conclusions
The thickness of the laminated mouthguard became larger when the sheet thickness of the first layer was greater. It is recommended to use the thicker mouthguard sheet as the first layer when fabricating a laminated mouthguard.</description><subject>Acetic acid</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>fabrication</subject><subject>Headgear</subject><subject>Incisors</subject><subject>Injury prevention</subject><subject>laminate order</subject><subject>Laminates</subject><subject>Molars</subject><subject>mouthguard</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>thickness</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><subject>Vinyl acetate</subject><issn>1600-4469</issn><issn>1600-9657</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10E1PwyAYB3BiNG5OD34B08SLHrpBoUCPZpsvyRIvuxNGH7bOvkxoY_btZXbuYCIXyMMv_8AfoVuCxySsCeTtmCScsTM0JBzjOOOpOD-eGePZAF15v8WYcJHhSzSglAqRCDFEi1lhLTioDURFHZW6KmrdQh5VTddu1p12edRuCvNRg_eRNqZxeVGvo7YJYzj5KIzBXaMLq0sPN8d9hJbP8-X0NV68v7xNnxaxYSRjMcGZsJQDT1NpGcltIiVwu5IplSzn4VITnWkstbGSZsZITS3RYKmgKwt0hB762J1rPjvwraoKb6AsdQ1N51XCBM0On-WB3v-h26ZzdXicStKEyUSylAT12CvjGu8dWLVzRaXdXhGsDg2r0LD6aTjYu2Nit6ogP8nfSgOY9OCrKGH_f5Kaz5Z95DdtD4Su</recordid><startdate>202106</startdate><enddate>202106</enddate><creator>Mizuhashi, Fumi</creator><creator>Koide, Kaoru</creator><creator>Watarai, Yuko</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4914-211X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0699-0637</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0935-1045</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202106</creationdate><title>Difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order</title><author>Mizuhashi, Fumi ; Koide, Kaoru ; Watarai, Yuko</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4194-1097f36e6558f41df288e6fb85384d697fa1a9a08acf839cc8a3f1aef373bfe3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Acetic acid</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>fabrication</topic><topic>Headgear</topic><topic>Incisors</topic><topic>Injury prevention</topic><topic>laminate order</topic><topic>Laminates</topic><topic>Molars</topic><topic>mouthguard</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>thickness</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><topic>Vinyl acetate</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mizuhashi, Fumi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koide, Kaoru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Watarai, Yuko</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Dental traumatology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mizuhashi, Fumi</au><au>Koide, Kaoru</au><au>Watarai, Yuko</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order</atitle><jtitle>Dental traumatology</jtitle><addtitle>Dent Traumatol</addtitle><date>2021-06</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>497</spage><epage>501</epage><pages>497-501</pages><issn>1600-4469</issn><eissn>1600-9657</eissn><abstract>Background/Aim
Mouthguard thickness should be maintained to prevent oral trauma by protecting the teeth and the surrounding soft tissue. The aim of this study was to examine the difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order.
Materials and methods
The mouthguard sheets used in this study were 2.0 mm and 3.0 mm ethylene‐vinyl acetate. The sheets were pressure‐formed using a pressure former, and the laminated mouthguard was fabricated. Two laminate conditions were examined. One condition used the 2.0‐mm sheet for the first layer and the 3.0‐mm sheet for the second layer (condition 2F3S) and the other condition used the 3.0‐mm sheet for the first layer and 2.0‐mm sheet for the second layer (condition 3F2S). The first layer was trimmed to cover the labial surface and incisal edge of the anterior teeth and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the posterior teeth. The second layer was formed over the first layer. The mouthguard thickness was measured at the labial surface of the central incisor and the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar. Differences in thickness by measurement region of mouthguards formed under different laminate conditions were analyzed by two‐way analysis of variance.
Results
The mouthguard thickness was significantly different at the measured regions of the central incisors and the first molars (p < .01). The thickness at the labial surface of the central incisor and at the buccal and occlusal surfaces of the first molar became statistically significantly larger with the 3F2S condition than that for the 2F3S condition (p < .05 or p < .01).
Conclusions
The thickness of the laminated mouthguard became larger when the sheet thickness of the first layer was greater. It is recommended to use the thicker mouthguard sheet as the first layer when fabricating a laminated mouthguard.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>33377277</pmid><doi>10.1111/edt.12644</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4914-211X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0699-0637</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0935-1045</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1600-4469 |
| ispartof | Dental traumatology, 2021-06, Vol.37 (3), p.497-501 |
| issn | 1600-4469 1600-9657 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2473900166 |
| source | Wiley Journals |
| subjects | Acetic acid Dentistry fabrication Headgear Incisors Injury prevention laminate order Laminates Molars mouthguard Teeth thickness Trauma Vinyl acetate |
| title | Difference in laminated mouthguard thickness according to the laminate order |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T03%3A45%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Difference%20in%20laminated%20mouthguard%20thickness%20according%20to%20the%20laminate%20order&rft.jtitle=Dental%20traumatology&rft.au=Mizuhashi,%20Fumi&rft.date=2021-06&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=497&rft.epage=501&rft.pages=497-501&rft.issn=1600-4469&rft.eissn=1600-9657&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/edt.12644&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2524828451%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2524828451&rft_id=info:pmid/33377277&rfr_iscdi=true |