These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Formation of vacuum-formed and pressure-formed mouthguards.
    Author: Mizuhashi F, Koide K.
    Journal: Dent Traumatol; 2017 Aug; 33(4):295-299. PubMed ID: 28301714.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND/AIM: The method used to form mouthguards should be carefully selected in order to obtain their full preventive benefits. The aim of this study was to examine the differences of mouthguard characteristics according to the forming methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mouthguard sheets of 3.8-mm ethylene vinyl acetate were vacuum-formed and pressure-formed on a working model. The sheets were formed when heating causing them to displace 15 mm from baseline. Mouthguard thickness was measured at the labial surface of the central incisor, the buccal surface of the first molar, and the occlusal surface of the first molar. The fit of the mouthguard was measured at the central incisor and the first molar. Differences in the thickness and fit between the vacuum-formed and pressure-formed mouthguards were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni method. RESULTS: Mouthguard thickness varied between the central incisors and first molars (P<.01). The thicknesses at the labial surface of the central incisor and the buccal surface of the first molar were greater in the vacuum-formed mouthguards than in the pressure-formed mouthguards (P<.01). The fit was better in the pressure-formed mouthguards than that in the vacuum-formed mouthguards (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: The vacuum-forming method maintained the mouthguard thickness, while the pressure-forming method obtained better fit.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]