Shock absorption potential of different mouth guard materials

Statement of problem. Clinical stresses and situations in the mouths of patients are substantially different; thus, it is not possible to make an exact in vivo comparison of the efficiency of various mouth guards. Purpose. This study developed a device and a method to test and quantify the potential...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 1999-09, Vol.82 (3), p.301-306
Hauptverfasser: de Wet, Francois A., Heyns, Michiel, Pretorius, Johannes
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 306
container_issue 3
container_start_page 301
container_title The Journal of prosthetic dentistry
container_volume 82
creator de Wet, Francois A.
Heyns, Michiel
Pretorius, Johannes
description Statement of problem. Clinical stresses and situations in the mouths of patients are substantially different; thus, it is not possible to make an exact in vivo comparison of the efficiency of various mouth guards. Purpose. This study developed a device and a method to test and quantify the potential of mouth guards to absorb shock and evaluated and compared 5 designs for mouth guards. Material and methods. Strain gauges and accelerometer sensors were mounted in various positions on the maxilla and inside an artificial skull. Sensors quantified the response of several areas of the skull to inputs of force on the maxillary teeth protected by the mouth guard being investigated. Input of force was applied to the maxillary teeth with a modal hammer equipped with a load cell. Five mouth guards of each of 5 designs were manufactured and placed in position before force was applied to the maxillary teeth. All inputs were measured and analyzed and, from those results, a method was developed to quantify the relative potential of the mouth guards to absorb shock. This method was then used to quantify the shock absorption potential of the 5 types of mouth guard designs. Results. All 5 types of mouth guards provided some measure of protection and were better than no protection. However, the level of protection provided by the 5 mouth guard designs differed. (J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:301-6.)
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70084-3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70020588</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022391399700843</els_id><sourcerecordid>70020588</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-63c8ad85a1b884e57ef7fafe620ffade20ecdb52a64f02969e34dfc1a1bb24163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMtKAzEUhoMotlYfQZmV6GI0ydyShYgUb1BwUV2HTHJio53JmMwIvr3pBXHX1eHA95-f8yF0SvAVwaS8nmNMaZpxkl1wfllhzPI020NjgnmVliwn-2j8h4zQUQgfOEJFRQ7RiOC84rQox-hmvnDqM5F1cL7rrWuTzvXQ9lYuE2cSbY0BH_ekcUO_SN4H6XXSyB58JMIxOjBxwMl2TtDbw_3r9CmdvTw-T-9mqcoL1qdlppjUrJCkZiyHogJTGWmgpNgYqYFiULouqCxzgykvOWS5NopEvqY5KbMJOt_c7bz7GiD0orFBwXIpW3BDEPF9igvGdoK0IoRRQiNYbEDlXQgejOi8baT_EQSLlWCxFixW9gTnYi1YZDF3ti0Y6gb0v9TGaARuNwBEH98WvAjKQqtAWw-qF9rZHRW_zIiLLw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>27118212</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Shock absorption potential of different mouth guard materials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>de Wet, Francois A. ; Heyns, Michiel ; Pretorius, Johannes</creator><creatorcontrib>de Wet, Francois A. ; Heyns, Michiel ; Pretorius, Johannes</creatorcontrib><description>Statement of problem. Clinical stresses and situations in the mouths of patients are substantially different; thus, it is not possible to make an exact in vivo comparison of the efficiency of various mouth guards. Purpose. This study developed a device and a method to test and quantify the potential of mouth guards to absorb shock and evaluated and compared 5 designs for mouth guards. Material and methods. Strain gauges and accelerometer sensors were mounted in various positions on the maxilla and inside an artificial skull. Sensors quantified the response of several areas of the skull to inputs of force on the maxillary teeth protected by the mouth guard being investigated. Input of force was applied to the maxillary teeth with a modal hammer equipped with a load cell. Five mouth guards of each of 5 designs were manufactured and placed in position before force was applied to the maxillary teeth. All inputs were measured and analyzed and, from those results, a method was developed to quantify the relative potential of the mouth guards to absorb shock. This method was then used to quantify the shock absorption potential of the 5 types of mouth guard designs. Results. All 5 types of mouth guards provided some measure of protection and were better than no protection. However, the level of protection provided by the 5 mouth guard designs differed. (J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:301-6.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3913</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6841</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70084-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10479256</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Dental Stress Analysis ; Dentistry ; Elasticity ; Equipment Design ; Humans ; Mouth Protectors ; Plastics ; Sports Equipment ; Stress, Mechanical</subject><ispartof>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 1999-09, Vol.82 (3), p.301-306</ispartof><rights>1999 Editorial Council of The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-63c8ad85a1b884e57ef7fafe620ffade20ecdb52a64f02969e34dfc1a1bb24163</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-63c8ad85a1b884e57ef7fafe620ffade20ecdb52a64f02969e34dfc1a1bb24163</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70084-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,45974</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479256$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>de Wet, Francois A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heyns, Michiel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pretorius, Johannes</creatorcontrib><title>Shock absorption potential of different mouth guard materials</title><title>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</title><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><description>Statement of problem. Clinical stresses and situations in the mouths of patients are substantially different; thus, it is not possible to make an exact in vivo comparison of the efficiency of various mouth guards. Purpose. This study developed a device and a method to test and quantify the potential of mouth guards to absorb shock and evaluated and compared 5 designs for mouth guards. Material and methods. Strain gauges and accelerometer sensors were mounted in various positions on the maxilla and inside an artificial skull. Sensors quantified the response of several areas of the skull to inputs of force on the maxillary teeth protected by the mouth guard being investigated. Input of force was applied to the maxillary teeth with a modal hammer equipped with a load cell. Five mouth guards of each of 5 designs were manufactured and placed in position before force was applied to the maxillary teeth. All inputs were measured and analyzed and, from those results, a method was developed to quantify the relative potential of the mouth guards to absorb shock. This method was then used to quantify the shock absorption potential of the 5 types of mouth guard designs. Results. All 5 types of mouth guards provided some measure of protection and were better than no protection. However, the level of protection provided by the 5 mouth guard designs differed. (J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:301-6.)</description><subject>Dental Stress Analysis</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Elasticity</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mouth Protectors</subject><subject>Plastics</subject><subject>Sports Equipment</subject><subject>Stress, Mechanical</subject><issn>0022-3913</issn><issn>1097-6841</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkMtKAzEUhoMotlYfQZmV6GI0ydyShYgUb1BwUV2HTHJio53JmMwIvr3pBXHX1eHA95-f8yF0SvAVwaS8nmNMaZpxkl1wfllhzPI020NjgnmVliwn-2j8h4zQUQgfOEJFRQ7RiOC84rQox-hmvnDqM5F1cL7rrWuTzvXQ9lYuE2cSbY0BH_ekcUO_SN4H6XXSyB58JMIxOjBxwMl2TtDbw_3r9CmdvTw-T-9mqcoL1qdlppjUrJCkZiyHogJTGWmgpNgYqYFiULouqCxzgykvOWS5NopEvqY5KbMJOt_c7bz7GiD0orFBwXIpW3BDEPF9igvGdoK0IoRRQiNYbEDlXQgejOi8baT_EQSLlWCxFixW9gTnYi1YZDF3ti0Y6gb0v9TGaARuNwBEH98WvAjKQqtAWw-qF9rZHRW_zIiLLw</recordid><startdate>19990901</startdate><enddate>19990901</enddate><creator>de Wet, Francois A.</creator><creator>Heyns, Michiel</creator><creator>Pretorius, Johannes</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990901</creationdate><title>Shock absorption potential of different mouth guard materials</title><author>de Wet, Francois A. ; Heyns, Michiel ; Pretorius, Johannes</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-63c8ad85a1b884e57ef7fafe620ffade20ecdb52a64f02969e34dfc1a1bb24163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Dental Stress Analysis</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Elasticity</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mouth Protectors</topic><topic>Plastics</topic><topic>Sports Equipment</topic><topic>Stress, Mechanical</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>de Wet, Francois A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heyns, Michiel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pretorius, Johannes</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>de Wet, Francois A.</au><au>Heyns, Michiel</au><au>Pretorius, Johannes</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Shock absorption potential of different mouth guard materials</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><date>1999-09-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>82</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>301</spage><epage>306</epage><pages>301-306</pages><issn>0022-3913</issn><eissn>1097-6841</eissn><abstract>Statement of problem. Clinical stresses and situations in the mouths of patients are substantially different; thus, it is not possible to make an exact in vivo comparison of the efficiency of various mouth guards. Purpose. This study developed a device and a method to test and quantify the potential of mouth guards to absorb shock and evaluated and compared 5 designs for mouth guards. Material and methods. Strain gauges and accelerometer sensors were mounted in various positions on the maxilla and inside an artificial skull. Sensors quantified the response of several areas of the skull to inputs of force on the maxillary teeth protected by the mouth guard being investigated. Input of force was applied to the maxillary teeth with a modal hammer equipped with a load cell. Five mouth guards of each of 5 designs were manufactured and placed in position before force was applied to the maxillary teeth. All inputs were measured and analyzed and, from those results, a method was developed to quantify the relative potential of the mouth guards to absorb shock. This method was then used to quantify the shock absorption potential of the 5 types of mouth guard designs. Results. All 5 types of mouth guards provided some measure of protection and were better than no protection. However, the level of protection provided by the 5 mouth guard designs differed. (J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:301-6.)</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>10479256</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70084-3</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3913
ispartof The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 1999-09, Vol.82 (3), p.301-306
issn 0022-3913
1097-6841
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70020588
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Dental Stress Analysis
Dentistry
Elasticity
Equipment Design
Humans
Mouth Protectors
Plastics
Sports Equipment
Stress, Mechanical
title Shock absorption potential of different mouth guard materials
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T09%3A39%3A01IST&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=Shock%20absorption%20potential%20of%20different%20mouth%20guard%20materials&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20prosthetic%20dentistry&rft.au=de%20Wet,%20Francois%20A.&rft.date=1999-09-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=301&rft.epage=306&rft.pages=301-306&rft.issn=0022-3913&rft.eissn=1097-6841&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70084-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70020588%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=27118212&rft_id=info:pmid/10479256&rft_els_id=S0022391399700843&rfr_iscdi=true