Accuracy of Instrumented Mouthguards During Direct Jaw Impacts Seen in Boxing

• Published in: Annals of biomedical engineering Vol. 52; no. 12; pp. 3219 - 3227
• Main Authors: Venkatraman, Jay, Abrams, Mitchell Z., Sherman, Donald, Ortiz-Paparoni, Maria, Bercaw, Jefferson R., MacDonald, Robert E., Kait, Jason, Dimbath, Elizabeth, Pang, Derek, Gray, Alexandra, Luck, Jason F., Bass, Cameron R., Bir, Cynthia A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.12.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Acceleration; Angular acceleration; Angular velocity; Athletic Injuries - physiopathology; Athletic Injuries - prevention & control; Biochemistry; Biological and Medical Physics; Biomechanical Phenomena; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering; Biomedicine; Biometrics; Biophysics; Brain injury; Cadaver; Center of gravity; Classical Mechanics; Craniocerebral Trauma - physiopathology; Craniocerebral Trauma - prevention & control; Criteria; Head; Head injuries; Humans; Injury prevention; Jaw; Jaw - physiology; Kinematics; Male; Mouth Protectors; Mouthguards; Original Article; Sensors; Soft tissues; Sports related injuries; Post-mortem human subjects; Instrumented mouthguards; Boxing punches
• ISSN: 0090-6964; 1573-9686; 1573-9686
• DOI: 10.1007/s10439-024-03586-x

Purpose Measuring head kinematics data is important to understand and develop methods and standards to mitigate head injuries in contact sports. Instrumented mouthguards (iMGs) have been developed to address coupling issues with previous sensors. Although validated with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs), there is limited post-mortem human subjects (PMHS) data which provides more accurate soft tissue responses. This study evaluated two iMGs (Prevent Biometrics (PRE) and Diversified Technical Systems (DTS) in response to direct jaw impacts. Methods Three unembalmed male cadaver heads were properly fitted with two different boil-and-bite iMGs and impacted with hook (4 m/s) and uppercut (3 m/s) punches. A reference sensor (REF) was rigidly attached to the base of the skull, impact kinematics were transformed to the head center of gravity and linear and angular kinematic data were compared to the iMGs including Peak Linear Acceleration, Peak Angular Acceleration, Peak Angular Velocity, Head Injury Criterion (HIC), HIC duration, and Brain Injury Criterion. Results Compared to the REF sensor, the PRE iMG underpredicted most of the kinematic data with slopes of the validation regression line between 0.72 and 1.04 and the DTS overpredicted all the kinematic data with slopes of the regression line between 1.4 and 8.7. Conclusion While the PRE iMG was closer to the REF sensor compared to the DTS iMG, the results did not support the previous findings reported with use of ATDs. Hence, our study highlights the benefits of using PMHS for validating the accuracy of iMGs since they closely mimic the human body compared to any ATD’s mandible.