Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards
Up to this moment, there is no guideline regarding the materials to produce mouthguards. The most used is Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA). Studies indicate that laminating EVA sheets with rigid components could increase the protection capacities of the mouthguards whereas other studies suggest that onl...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Gruppo Italiano Frattura
2021-06-01
|
| Series: | Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://212.237.37.202/index.php/fis/article/view/3068 |
| _version_ | 1798024107005050880 |
|---|---|
| author | Maria Moreira João Carlos Ramos Ana Messias Maria Augusta Neto Ana Paula Amaro Paulo NB Reis |
| author_facet | Maria Moreira João Carlos Ramos Ana Messias Maria Augusta Neto Ana Paula Amaro Paulo NB Reis |
| author_sort | Maria Moreira |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Up to this moment, there is no guideline regarding the materials to produce mouthguards. The most used is Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA). Studies indicate that laminating EVA sheets with rigid components could increase the protection capacities of the mouthguards whereas other studies suggest that only replacement of the material within it structure can increase energy absorption. The aim of this work is to evaluate the impact response of four different foils when compared to a 4 mm thickness EVA sheet. Five groups of different materials were subjected to impact tests with energies of 1.72 J, 2.85 J and 4.40 J. In this context was considered the following materials: EVA foils (G1), EVA foils with an EVA foam core (G2), EVA foils with an acetate core (G3), Foils of Erkoloc-pro (G4) and Foils of Ortho IBT resin (G5). Comparisons between the materials were made by qualitative analysis of the average energy-time and load-displacement curves, as well as by comparison of the peak load, maximum displacement, contact time and absorbed energy using the Kruskal-Wallis test. It was possible to conclude that statistically significant differences were found in the energy absorbed (p=0.001). Laminated foils with a soft core (G2) are a good option to produce mouthguards, while EVA foils with an acetate core (G3) and foils of Ortho IBT resin (G5) were declared unsuitable. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T17:57:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ed9e4d5ee49f458f84d3cf9459836c92 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1971-8993 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T17:57:02Z |
| publishDate | 2021-06-01 |
| publisher | Gruppo Italiano Frattura |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale |
| spelling | doaj.art-ed9e4d5ee49f458f84d3cf9459836c922022-12-22T04:10:40ZengGruppo Italiano FratturaFrattura ed Integrità Strutturale1971-89932021-06-01155710.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.06Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguardsMaria Moreira0João Carlos Ramos1Ana Messias2Maria Augusta Neto3Ana Paula Amaro4Paulo NB Reis5FMUC, Dep. of Dental Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, PortugalFMUC, Dep. of Dental Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, PortugalUniversity of Coimbra, CEMMPRE, Dep. of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbra, PortugalUniversity of Coimbra, CEMMPRE, Dep. of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbra, PortugalUniversity of Coimbra, CEMMPRE, Dep. of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbra, PortugalUniversity of Coimbra, CEMMPRE, Dep. of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbra, PortugalUp to this moment, there is no guideline regarding the materials to produce mouthguards. The most used is Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA). Studies indicate that laminating EVA sheets with rigid components could increase the protection capacities of the mouthguards whereas other studies suggest that only replacement of the material within it structure can increase energy absorption. The aim of this work is to evaluate the impact response of four different foils when compared to a 4 mm thickness EVA sheet. Five groups of different materials were subjected to impact tests with energies of 1.72 J, 2.85 J and 4.40 J. In this context was considered the following materials: EVA foils (G1), EVA foils with an EVA foam core (G2), EVA foils with an acetate core (G3), Foils of Erkoloc-pro (G4) and Foils of Ortho IBT resin (G5). Comparisons between the materials were made by qualitative analysis of the average energy-time and load-displacement curves, as well as by comparison of the peak load, maximum displacement, contact time and absorbed energy using the Kruskal-Wallis test. It was possible to conclude that statistically significant differences were found in the energy absorbed (p=0.001). Laminated foils with a soft core (G2) are a good option to produce mouthguards, while EVA foils with an acetate core (G3) and foils of Ortho IBT resin (G5) were declared unsuitable.https://212.237.37.202/index.php/fis/article/view/3068MouthguardImpact responseThermoforming foilMechanical testing |
| spellingShingle | Maria Moreira João Carlos Ramos Ana Messias Maria Augusta Neto Ana Paula Amaro Paulo NB Reis Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale Mouthguard Impact response Thermoforming foil Mechanical testing |
| title | Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards |
| title_full | Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards |
| title_fullStr | Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards |
| title_full_unstemmed | Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards |
| title_short | Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards |
| title_sort | impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards |
| topic | Mouthguard Impact response Thermoforming foil Mechanical testing |
| url | https://212.237.37.202/index.php/fis/article/view/3068 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mariamoreira impactresponseofdifferentmaterialsforsportsmouthguards AT joaocarlosramos impactresponseofdifferentmaterialsforsportsmouthguards AT anamessias impactresponseofdifferentmaterialsforsportsmouthguards AT mariaaugustaneto impactresponseofdifferentmaterialsforsportsmouthguards AT anapaulaamaro impactresponseofdifferentmaterialsforsportsmouthguards AT paulonbreis impactresponseofdifferentmaterialsforsportsmouthguards |