Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards

Authors

  • Maria Moreira FMUC, Dep. of Dental Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
  • João Carlos Ramos FMUC, Dep. of Dental Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
  • Ana Messias University of Coimbra, CEMMPRE, Dep. of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbra, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4019-9379
  • Maria Augusta Neto University of Coimbra, CEMMPRE, Dep. of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbra, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3030-0146
  • Ana Paula Amaro University of Coimbra, CEMMPRE, Dep. of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbra, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5237-0773
  • Paulo NB Reis University of Coimbra, CEMMPRE, Dep. of Mechanical Engineering, Coimbra, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5203-3670

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.06

Keywords:

Mouthguard, Impact response, Thermoforming foil, Mechanical testing

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

22-06-2021

Issue

Section

Impact & Dynamics

Categories

How to Cite

Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards. (2021). Frattura Ed Integrità Strutturale, 15(57), 63-69. https://doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.06