Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31025132›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2019

Mechanical Safety of Embedded Electronics for In-body Wearables: A Smart Mouthguard Study.

Helen Bridgman, Man Ting Kwong, Jeroen H M Bergmann

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Maximum impact heights of currently used mouthguards in field hockey.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Helen BridgmanNatural Interactions Lab, Oxford Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Man Ting KwongNatural Interactions Lab, Oxford Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Jeroen H M BergmannNatural Interactions Lab, Oxford Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus Research Building, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK. jeroen.bergmann@eng.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7306-2630
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/R511742/1
6 · The paper itself

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

Equipment DesignMouth ProtectorsSports EquipmentWearable Electronic DevicesComputer SimulationMaterials TestingPolyvinylsethylenevinylacetate copolymerPolyvinylsEmbedded electronicsFEMImpactMechanical assessmentThermoformed

Identifiers

PMID31025132
PMCPMC6647539
OpenAlexW2942247302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.