Custom-Fitted EVA Mouthguards: what is the ideal thickness? a dynamic finite element impact study

• Published in: Dental traumatology Vol. 32; no. 2; pp. 95 - 102
• Main Authors: Verissimo, Crisnicaw, Costa, Paulo Victor Moura, Santos-Filho, Paulo Cesar Freitas, Tantbirojn, Daranee, Versluis, Antheunis, Soares, Carlos José
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.04.2016
• Subjects: biomechanics; Dentistry; Elastic Modulus; Equipment Design; Finite Element Analysis; Humans; impact absorption ability; Mouth Protectors; mouthguard; Polyvinyls; Sports Equipment; stress; Stress, Mechanical; stress; mouthguard; impact absorption ability; biomechanics; finite element analysis
• ISSN: 1600-4469; 1600-9657
• DOI: 10.1111/edt.12210

Background/Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the tooth stresses and strains, shock absorption, and displacement during impact of custom‐fitted mouthguards with different thicknesses. Methods Six bar‐shaped specimens of the EVA were made and subjected to tensile test for elastic modulus assessment. Two‐dimensional plane‐strain models of a human maxillary central incisor, periodontal ligament, bone support, soft tissue, and mouthguard (MTG) were created. The mouthguards were modeled in five different thicknesses (2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mm). One model was created without mouthguard. A nonlinear dynamic impact analysis was performed in which a rigid object hit the model at 1 m s−1. Strain and stress (von Mises and Critical modified von Mises) distributions were evaluated, and the displacement of the mouthguard with respect to the tooth was calculated. Results The mean [SD] for the EVA elastic modulus was 18.075 [0.457] MPa. The model without mouthguard showed the highest stress values at the enamel and dentin structures in the tooth crown during the impact. For the MTG models, the location of the stress concentrations changed to the root, regardless of the MTG thickness, but maximum stresses in the enamel and dentin were lower compared with the model without MTG. Increasing the mouthguard thickness did not notably decrease the stress‐strain values. Conclusion It was concluded that the use of a mouthguard promoted lower stresses and strains in teeth during an impact with a rigid object. There was no substantial difference in peak stresses and strains and in shock absorption among the different mouthguard thicknesses.