Dental and Medical Problems

Dent. Med. Probl.
Index Copernicus (ICV 2018) – 113.05
MNiSW – 20
Average rejection rate – 71.8%
Average waiting time at editors (to acceptance) – 18.38 days
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2015, vol. 52, nr 1, January-March, p. 78–85

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Comparison of the Hardness, Energy Absorption and Water Absorbability of Polymeric Materials Used in the Manufacture of Mouthguards

Porównanie twardości, absorpcji energii i nasiąkliwości materiałów polimerowych stosowanych w wykonawstwie ochraniaczy wewnątrzustnych

Dominika Gawlak1,A,B,D,E,F, Katarzyna Mańka-Malara1,A,B,D,E, Elżbieta Mierzwińska-Nastalska1,E,F, Bartłomiej Waśniewski2,B,C, Joanna Ryszkowska2,B,C

1 Department of Prosthetics Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

2 Department of Ceramics and Polymers, Faculty of Material Science and Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland


Background. Mouthguards constitute an inseparable feature of injury prevention for the head and mouth area. Due to growing expectations regarding comfort of usage and resistance parameters strictly determined quality standards must be established for such equipment. These resistance parameters are usually dependent on the type of the material they were made of and the technology applied.
Objectives. The aim of the present study was to compare the hardness, elasticity and absorbability of polymeric materials used to produce mouthguards as well as to identify which materials have the most favourable resistance and functional properties.
Material and Methods. Samples of polymeric material obtained during deep moulding, canning and thermal injection were utilised to measure hardness, resilience and absorbability.
Results. On the basis on the researched material, it is recommended that the following be used in the production of mouthguards: Impak® in 1 : 1 and 1.5 : 1 proportions, Elastosil®, double-laminated Erkoflex® and Corflex®, as these materials ensure optimal hardness and energy absorption. The studied material was shown to have an acceptable level of absorbability (up to 0.5% in mouthguards), but it was the Corflex Orthodontic material that exhibited the lowest values in this respect.
Conclusion. Corflex Orthodontic process using the thermal injection technique is the most suitable material for preparing mouthguards.

Key words

sport, orofacial injury, mouthguards

Słowa kluczowe

urazy części twarzowej czaszki, sport, ochraniacze wewnątrzustne

References (23)

  1. Patrick D.G., Van Noort R., Found M.S.: Scale of protection and the various types of sports mouthguards. Br. J. Sports Med. 2005, 39, 278–281.
  2. Knapik J.J., Marshall S.W., Lee R.B., Darakjv S.S., Jones S.B., Mitchener T.A., Delacruz G.G., Jones B.H.: Mouthguards in sport activities. History, physical properties and injury prevention effectiveness. Sports Med. 2007, 37, 177–144.
  3. Craig R.G., Godwin W.C.: Properties of athletic mouth protectors and materials. J. Oral Rehab. 2002, 29, 146–150.
  4. Going R.E., Loehmann R.E., Chan M.S.: Mouthguard materials: their physical and mechanical properties. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1974, 89, 132–138.
  5. Gawlak D., Łojszczyk R.: Materials and techniques used in manufacturing mouthguards. Stomat Współ. 2010, 16, 1, 8–15 [in Polish].
  6. Craig R.G., Powers J.M.: Dental Materials. Urban and Partner, Elsevier, Wrocław 2008, 70–77 [in Polish].
  7. Marciniak J., Kaczmarek M., Ziębowicz A.: Biomaterials in dentistry. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej, Gliwice 2009 [in Polish].
  8. Pielichowski K.: Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA). Laboratorium 2009, 11–12, 50–53 [in Polish].
  9. Auroy P., Duchaterlard P., Zmantar N., Hennequin M.: Hardness and shock absorption of silicone rubber for mouth guards. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1996, 75, 463–471.
  10. Broniewski T., Kapko J., Płaczek W., Thomalla J.: Testing and evaluation of the properties of plastics. WNT, Warszawa 2000, 84–92 [in Polish].
  11. Bishop B.M., Davies E.H., Von Fraunhofer J.A.: Materials for mouth protectors. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1985, 53, 256–261.
  12. Gould T.E., Piland S.G., Shon J., Hoyle C.E., Nazarenko S.: Characterization of mouthguards materials: Physical and mechanical properties of commercialized products. Dent. Mater. 2009, 25, 771–780.
  13. Rubber. Guide engineer and technician. Wyd. 2. WNT, Warszawa 1981 [in Polish].
  14. Greasley A., Imlach G., Karet B.: Application of a standard test to the in vitro performance of mouthguards. Br. J. Sports Med. 1998, 32, 17–19.
  15. Greasley A., Karet B.: Towards the development of a standard test procedure for mouthguard assessment. Br. J. Sports Med. 1997, 31, 31–35.
  16. Tran D., Cooke M.S., Newsome P.R.H.: Laboratory evaluation of mouthguard material. Dent. Traumatol. 2001, 17, 260–265.
  17. Westerman B., Stringfellow P., Eccleston J.: EVA mouthguards: how thick should they be? Dent. Traumatol. 2002, 18, 24–27.
  18. Craig R.G., Godwin W.C.: Physical properties of materials for custom-made mouth protectors. J. Mich. Dent. Assoc. 1967, 49, 34–38.
  19. Wilkinson E., Powers J.: Properties of custom made mouth-protector materials. Phys. Sports Med. 1986, 14, 77–84.
  20. Jagger R., Milward P., Waters M.: Properties of an experimental mouthguard material. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2000, 13, 416–419.
  21. Loehman R., Chan M., Going R.: Optimization of materials for a user – formed mouthguard. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 1975, 3, 199–208.
  22. Waked E.J., Lee T.K., Caputo A.A.: Effects of aging on the dimensional stability of custom-made mouthguards. Quintessence Int. 2002, 33, 700–705.
  23. Westerman B., Stringfellow P., Eccleston J.: The effect on energy absorption of hard insert in laminated EVA mouthguards. Aust. Dent. J. 2000, 45, 21–23.