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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 1999-09, Vol.82 (3), p.301-306 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 |