Publication:
Postfabrication Thickness of Single- and Double-Layered Pressure-Formed Mouthguards

dc.contributor.authorSen Tunc, Emine
dc.contributor.authorOzdemir, Turkan Egilmez
dc.contributor.authorArici, Selim
dc.contributor.authorIDArici, Selim/0000-0001-8890-2065
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T14:04:31Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T14:04:31Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.department-temp[Sen Tunc, Emine] Ondokuz Mayis Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Pediat Dent, TR-55139 Samsun, Turkey -- [Ozdemir, Turkan Egilmez] Samsun Oral Dent Hlth Ctr, Samsun, Turkey -- [Arici, Selim] Ondokuz Mayis Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Orthodont Dent, TR-55139 Samsun, Turkey --en_US
dc.description.abstractAimThe thickness of a mouthguard (MG) plays an important role in its primary function of preventing injuries. Multi-layered MGs have recently come into prominent use due to the disadvantages associated with single-layered MGs. Whereas researchers have evaluated the postfabrication thickness of single-layered MGs, the effects of fabrication procedures on multi-layered MGs are unknown. This study aimed to evaluate postfabrication thickness of various single-layered and double-layered pressure-formed MGs. Materials and methodsMouthguards were fabricated using stone models produced from impressions of a phantom model maxillary arch. A total of 50 MGs were fabricated from ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) sheets and divided into 10 groups of five according to the sheet(s) used in fabrication. The initial thickness of each sheet was recorded prior to fabrication. Following fabrication, MG thickness was measured at seven sites per MG. Data were analyzed using independent t-tests and one-way anova followed by Tukey's test. ResultsMean reduction in MG thickness was 36-38% for single-layered MGs and 32-34% for double-layered MGs. Significant differences in thickness were seen between measured sites for all MG groups (P<0.05). Maximum thinning occurred at the incisal edge of the central incisor, whereas minimum thinning was observed in the molar crown fissure sites for all groups. ConclusionClinicians should take into account the effects of fabrication on MG thickness. A loss of thickness of approximately 50% should be expected in critical areas of both single-layered and double-layered MGs made from EVA.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/edt.12010
dc.identifier.endpage382en_US
dc.identifier.issn1600-4469
dc.identifier.issn1600-9657
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.pmid23067560
dc.identifier.startpage378en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12010
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/15657
dc.identifier.volume29en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000324474200006
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.journalDental Traumatologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectMouthguarden_US
dc.subjectSports Dentistryen_US
dc.subjectThicknessen_US
dc.titlePostfabrication Thickness of Single- and Double-Layered Pressure-Formed Mouthguardsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files