Romero PA, Galán LA, Gutiérrez VDH, Díaz RRM, Canseco LJ

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 80-87
PDF size: 640.10 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The contact sports, increase the risk of trauma causing functional, aesthetic and psychological alterations, mouth guards are part of the safety equipment that protects the athlete from this kind of accidents, it is also important that the mouth guard had to provides comfort, for achieve a best physical performance. Objective: Make the comparison with the comfort of American football players with the use of prefabricated protectors and customized protectors. Method: A quasi-experimental, analytical and prospective study was carried out, including 15 American football players from the Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán, UNAM, who signed an informed consent. The lead author of this project manufactured the upper mouth guards with ethylvinylacetate (EVA) #35 copolymer foil. The prefabricated protector was made of silicone. The players performed two practice sessions where they did 30 minutes of running, 15 of stretching, 60 of strength and skill where they required being in constant verbal communication and 30 of cardiovascular in a gymnasium (they used a protector in each training). A questionnaire –previously validated by expert consensus– was applied to evaluate comfort in breathing, language, nausea, adaptation, comfort and oral hydration with each type of protector. The information was analyzed in the program SPSS v19.0; proportions were used for the qualitative variables and measures of central tendency and dispersion for the quantitative ones. To compare the comfort with the use of both protectors the test χ² was used, with a level of significance p ‹ 0.05. Results: The mean age was 20 ± 2 years. With the personalized protector, 11 players (0.73) reported that they breathed and spoke better, feeling less nausea 12 (0.80), better adaptation 11 (0.73) and greater comfort 12 (0.80) than with the use of prefabricated mouth guards, finding statistically significant differences (p ‹ 0.05) and 8 (0.53) reported less oral hydration (p › 0.05). 12 (0.80) of players mentioned having more comfort with the custom protector. Conclusions: The use of a personalized mouth guard offers better fit and comfort made with sheet copolymer of ethylvinylacetate, after two training practices.

REFERENCES

1. Declaración de la política de FDI. Sistema 2016, Poznan, Polonia.

2. Queiróz AF, de Brito RB Jr, Ramacciato JC, Motta RH, Flório FM. Influence of mouthguards on the physical performance of soccer players. Dent Traumatol. 2013; 29 (6): 450-454.

3. Standards Australia International. Handbook: Guidelines for the fabrication, use and maintenance of sports mouthguards. 2003; 209.

4. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard practice for care and use of athletic mouth protectors. International Designation. 2006; 697.

5. Grewal N, Kumari F, Tiwari U. Comparative evaluation of shock absorption ability of custom-fit mouthguards with new-generation polyolefin self-adapting mouthguards in three different maxillary anterior teeth alignments using Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) sensors. Dent Traumatol. 2015; 31 (4): 294-301.

6. Matalon V, Brin I, Moskovitz M, Ram D. Compliance of children and youngsters in the use of mouthguards. Dent Traumatol. 2008; 24 (4): 462-467.

7. Craig RG, Godwin WC: Mouth Protectors Properties of athletic mouth protectors and materials. J Oral Rehabil. 2002, 29:146.

8. Rivera MA, Marín O. La aplicación de la odontología en el futbol americano. Odontología Clínica. 2008; 7: 20-24.

9. Arana-Ochoa JJ. Fundamentos en odontología del deporte. Arch Med Deporte. 2006; 23 (116): 463-467.

10. Delaney JS, Montgomery DL. Effect of noncustom bimolar mouthguards on peak ventilation in ice hockey players. Clin J Sport Med. 2005; 15(3):154-157.

11. Geary JL, Clifford TJ, Kinirons MJ. Occlusal accommodation and mouthguards for prevention of orofacial trauma. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2009; 7 (1): 55-59.

12. Takahashi M, Koide K, Mizuhashi F. Variation in mouthguard thickness due to different heating conditions during fabrication. J Prosthodont Res. 2013; 57 (3): 179-185.

13. Hodges J. Mouthguard mastery. Good Innovations; 2008. pp. 6-14.

14. Nozaki K, Maeda Y, Tamagawa H. The effect of wearing custom-made mouthguards on the aeroacoustic properties of Japanese sibilant /s/. Dent Traumatol. 2013; 29 (2): 139-144.

15. Verissimo C, Costa PV, Santos-Filho PC, Fernandes-Neto AJ, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A et al. Evaluation of a dentoalveolar model for testing mouthguards: stress and strain analyses. Dent Traumatol. 2016; 32 (1): 4-13.

16. Gawlak D, Mierzwińska-Nastalska E, Mańka-Malara K, Kamiński T. Assessment of custom and standard, self-adapted mouthguards in terms of comfort and users subjective impressions of their protective function. Dent Traumatol. 2015; 31 (2): 113-117.

17. Duarte-Pereira DM, Del Rey-Santamaria M, Javierre-Garcés C, Barbany-Cairó J, Paredes-Garcia J, Valmaseda-Castellón E et al. Wearability and physiological effects of custom-fitted vs self-adapted mouthguards. Dent Traumatol. 2008; 24 (4): 439-442.

18. Duddy FA, Weissman J, Lee RA Sr, Paranjpe A, Johnson JD, Cohenca N. Influence of different types of mouthguards on strength and performance of collegiate athletes: a controlled-randomized trial. Dent Traumatol. 2012; 28 (4): 263-267.

19. Chakravarthy K, Balakrishna K, Subba R. Comfort and acceptability of different types of mouthguards among 7-12 years old children at skating rink. Ann Essences Dent. 2011; 3 (2): 19-23.

20. Eroğlu E, Diljin KA, Lütfi BM. Elite tae kwon do athletes’ satisfaction with custom-made mouthguards. Dent Traumatol. 2006; 22 (4): 193-197.

21. Garner DP, Miskimin J. Effects of mouthpiece use on auditory and visual reaction time in college males and females. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2009;30 Spec No 2:14–7.