Premium
The influence of the sensor type on the measured impact absorption of mouthguard material
Author(s) -
Takeda Tomotaka,
Ishigami Keiichi,
Jun Handa,
Nakajima Kazunori,
Shimada Atsushi,
Ogawa Toru
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
dental traumatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.82
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1600-9657
pISSN - 1600-4469
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-4469.2004.00220.x
Subject(s) - mouthguard , strain gauge , accelerometer , load cell , materials science , composite material , pendulum , ball (mathematics) , structural engineering , engineering , mechanical engineering , mathematics , physics , physical therapy , medicine , mathematical analysis , quantum mechanics
– Mouthguards have been tested for impact energy absorption using drop‐ball and/or pendulum devices. While all reports show efficiency of the mouthguard, the impact absorption abilities reported differ considerably. This difference has been attributed to differences of mouthguard material, design, and the impact force used. However, it is also possibly because of the difference in the sensors used in the experiments. The purpose of this study was to test three types of sensors and to assess which type was most appropriate for measurement of the impact absorption ability of mouthguards. A pendulum‐type testing equipment and steel ball, wooden bat, baseball, field‐hockey ball were used as the impact object. For all sensors or impact objects, the mouthguard decreased the impact forces. However, the absorption ability of the mouthguard varied according to the sensor or impact object. The absorbency values became smaller with the strain gauge, the accelerometer, and the load cell, respectively. With the steel ball as the impact object, 80.3% of impact absorption was measured with the strain gauge and the accelerometer but, only 62.1% with the load cell sensor. With the wooden bat, impact absorption was 76.3% with the strain gauge and 38.8% for the load cell. For the baseball ball, the absorption measurement decreased from 46.3% with the strain gauge to 4.36 with the load cell and for the field‐hockey ball, the decrease in measurement values were similar (23.6% with the strain gauge and 2.43% with the load cell). It is clear that the sensor plays an important role in the measurement values reported for absorbency of mouthguard materials and a standard sensor should be used for all experiments.