ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2019
Mechanical Safety of Embedded Electronics for In-body Wearables: A Smart Mouthguard Study.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occurrence of Orofacial and Dental Injuries in Rugby: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond protection: the growing role of instrumented mouthguards in sports.British dental journal · 2026Review
- Recent Advancements and Applications of Nanosensors in Oral Health: Revolutionizing Diagnosis and Treatment.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Potential of an Oral-Based Bioguard to Estimate Heart Rate Using Photoplethysmography.Biosensors · 2023Article
- Impact behaviour of 3D printed cellular structures for mouthguard applications.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Time Window of Head Impact Kinematics Measurement for Calculation of Brain Strain and Strain Rate in American Football.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2021Article
- Biomechanical Analysis of a Custom-Made Mouthguard Reinforced With Different Elastic Modulus Laminates During a Simulated Maxillofacial Trauma.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2021Article
- Development of a Wearable Mouth Guard Device for Monitoring Teeth Clenching during Exercise.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Validation and Comparison of Instrumented Mouthguards for Measuring Head Kinematics and Assessing Brain Deformation in Football Impacts.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2020Article
- Maximum impact heights of currently used mouthguards in field hockey.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2020Article
- A Comparative Study of Shock Absorption Capacities of Custom Fabricated Mouthguards using a Triangulation Sensor.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The growing popularity of contact sports drives the requirement for better design of protective equipment, such as mouthguards. Smart mouthguards with embedded electronics provide a multitude of new ways to provide increased safety and protection to users. Characterisation of how electronic components embedded in typical mouthguard material, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), behave under typical sports impacts is crucial for future designs. A novel pendulum impact rig using a hockey ball disc impactor was developed to investigate impact forces and component failure. Two sets of dental models (aluminium and plastic padding chemical metal) were used to manufacture post-thermoformed mouthguards. Seven embedding conditions with varying thickness of EVA (1.5 and 3 mm) and locations of electrical components were tested. Component failures were observed in four out of seven test conditions, and the experimental failure forces at which the electrical component had a 50% chance of failure were reported for those cases. The experimental results showed that an EVA thickness of 3 mm surrounding the electrical component gives the most comprehensive protection even under extreme surface conformity. Computational models on surface conformity of EVA showed that a block of EVA with a minimum thickness of 1.5 mm was better at reducing stress concentration than a shell with an overall thickness of 1.5 mm. This study demonstrated that the thickness of a mouthguard is important when protecting electrical components from extreme dental surface conformity, furthermore the surface geometry should not be overlooked when considering electrical component safety for in-body wearables that are impact prone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.