Premium
Comparison of laboratory and intraorally formed mouth protectors
Author(s) -
Stokes Alastair N. S.,
Croft Grant C.,
Gee Derrick
Publication year - 1987
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.1600-9657.1987.tb00633.x
Subject(s) - concussion , medicine , dentistry , orthodontics , physical therapy , poison control , injury prevention , medical emergency
An ethylene vinyl acetate rim was intraorally adapted (I), and another was vacuum‐formed on a stone cast (L). One type of mouth protector was worn for 8 weeks and then exchanged for the other. Subjects were not aware which type they had. At the end of the period a questionnaire was administered. There were 48 valid returns. Male/female ratio was 36/12, mean age 19 1/2 years. Most played rugby football (31) and hockey (15). Half the group wore their mouth protectors for competition only and half for all risk occasions. No tooth injuries occurred, but minor face and gingival lacerations 18, L6, and concussion L4 were reported. Comfort and fit were rated good 126,L34; reasonable I17, L10; poor 15,L4. Durability was rated good 140, L39; worn 14, L7; lost 13, LI. Preferences were I14, L23, no preference 10. Subjects were charged a fee to cover the cost of the I mouth protector. Twenty‐four would pay a higher fee to get their preferred type, 16 would not. Both mouth protector types prevented dental injury, but the L type fitted better and was more comfortable. There may be a cost barrier to the use of the L type.