English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Summary Background Orthodontic patients wearing fixed appliances are susceptible to traumatic dental injuries during contact-sport. This laboratory study investigated the protective qualities of orthodontic mouthguards using impact-testing to a typodont fitted with a fixed appliance through peak load transfer and retention of the mouthguard. Methods Seven orthodontic mouthguards [three custom-made (Medium-CM, Heavy-CM, Heavy-pro-CM); three commercially-available mouth-formed (Shock-Doctor® Ultra Braces, Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces, Opro® Ortho-Bronze Braces) and a Shock-Doctor® Instant-Fit] were fitted to a maxillary arch typodont bonded with a fixed appliance and impact-tested using 0.5 or 1 Joule (J) energy via hockey-ball, cricket-ball or steel-ball projectile. A load-cell recorded peak load transfer through mouthguard to typodont with retention scored in a binary manner dependent upon any displacement following impact. Differences across mouthguards were calculated with ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis test for normal and non-normal data, respectively. Post hoc comparisons across mouthguards were conducted via Dunnett's test with Sidak correction. Results Only the three custom-made and Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces were not displaced by impact-testing. For these, Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces transferred the smallest load for 3/6 impact-tests, followed by Medium-CM. Heavy-pro-CM performed poorly, ranking penultimate or worst for all impact-tests. Significant differences were found between mouthguards for cricket-ball and steel-ball set-ups. The Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces performed better than the Heavy and Heavy-pro-CM for 0.5 J cricket-ball impact-test (P &amp;lt; 0.05), whilst Medium-CM performed better than Heavy-pro-CM. For 1 J cricket-ball, there were significant differences between Medium-CM and Heavy-pro-CM (P &amp;lt; 0.05). For 0.5 J steel-ball, the Medium-CM performed significantly better than both Heavy-pro-CM and Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces (P &amp;lt; 0.05), whilst Heavy-CM performed better than the Heavy-pro-CM (P &amp;lt; 0.05). For the 1 J steel-ball, Medium and Heavy-CM performed better than Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces (P &amp;lt; 0.05). Conclusions Opro® Ortho-Gold and Medium-CM mouthguards offer the best protection for low-impact sports, whilst Medium or Heavy-CM mouthguards are recommended for high-impact sport.

What are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? An in vitro study