Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31148073›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2019

Effectiveness of Mouthguards for the Prevention of Orofacial Injuries and Concussions in Sports: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Joseph J Knapik, Blake L Hoedebecke, Georgia G Rogers, Marilyn A Sharp, Stephen W Marshall

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Comparison of Shock Absorption Capacities of 3D-Printed Custom-Made Mouthguards: A Comparative In Vitro Study.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Position Statement and Recommendations for Custom-Made Sport Mouthguards.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2025
    Review
  12. Impact Absorption Power of Polyolefin Fused Filament Fabrication 3D-Printed Sports Mouthguards: In Vitro Study.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph J KnapikUS Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, 10 General Greene Ave, Natick, MA, 01760, USA. joseph.j.knapik.ctr@mail.mil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1568-1860
Blake L Hoedebecke99th Medical Group, Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas Valley, NV, USA.
Georgia G RogersRegional Health Command-Atlantic, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA.
Marilyn A SharpUS Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, 10 General Greene Ave, Natick, MA, 01760, USA.
Stephen W MarshallUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine · USMike O'Callaghan Federal Medical Center · USRegional Health · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSport activities can account for up to one-third of all orofacial injuries. Mouthguards (MGs) have been proposed as a way to reduce these injuries.

objectivesTo present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of MGs for the prevention of sports-related orofacial injuries and concussions.

methodsUsing specific search terms, PubMed, Ovid Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched to find studies that (1) contained original quantitative data on MGs and orofacial injuries and/or concussions, (2) included groups involved in sports or exercise activities, (3) included MG users and non-MG users, and (4) provided either risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) comparing injuries among MG users and non-MG users, or data that could be used to calculate RRs and 95% CIs.

resultsTwenty-six studies met the review criteria. Investigations employed a variety of study designs, utilized different types of MGs, used widely varying injury case definitions, and had multiple methodological weaknesses. Despite these limitations, meta-analyses indicated that the use of MGs reduced the overall risk of orofacial injuries in 12 cohort trials (summary RR [nonusers/users] = 2.33, 95% CI 1.59-3.44), and 11 trials involving self-report questionnaires (summary RR [nonusers/users] = 2.32, 95% CI 1.04-5.13). The influence of MGs on concussion incidence in five cohort studies was modest (summary RR [nonusers/users] = 1.25, 95% CI 0.90-1.74).

conclusionThese data indicate that MGs should be used in sports activities where there is significant orofacial injury risk.

Indexed as

Mouth ProtectorsAthletic InjuriesBrain ConcussionFacial InjuriesHumansIncidenceMouth

Identifiers

PMID31148073
OpenAlexW2946838174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.