ArticleDental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology2020
Maximum impact heights of currently used mouthguards in field hockey.
Article in Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reinforcement Positioning in Custom-Made Mouthguards for Maxillofacial Trauma Protection: A Combined In Vitro and In Silico Analyses.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2025Article
- Orodental injury and mouthguard usage in Dutch and international field hockey.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Maximum impact heights of currently used mouthguards in field hockey.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimThe effectiveness of mouthguards used in field hockey is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the maximum impact heights between currently used mouthguards in field hockey to prevent dental injury.
methodsFour boil-and-bite mouthguards (Dita, Shock Doctor, SISU, and Stag) and one custom-made mouthguard (Elysee) were tested for maximum impact height. A hockey ball was released in a tube from increasing heights onto plaster and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) dental models. Models were tested without mouthguard as a control. The experiment was repeated 10 times per mouthguard and for the control on each dental model. The maximum impact height for when the dental model broke was used to calculate the speed. The mouthguards and controls were compared.
resultsThe maximum impact heights (median [25%-75%] in meters) onto plaster dental models were as follows: control 0.23 (0.15-0.25), Dita 0.35 (0.30-0.35), Elysee 0.45 (0.34-0.50), Shock Doctor 0.68 (0.60-0.74), SISU 0.23 (0.20-0.26), and Stag 0.35 (0.35-0.46). The maximum impact height for Shock Doctor was significantly higher than all other mouthguards and the control (all P < .05). The maximum impact heights onto PMMA dental models were as follows: control 2.00 (1.30-2.50), Dita 3.80 (2.65-6.95), Elysee 3.30 (2.30-4.20), Shock Doctor 6.20 (2.80-8.10), SISU 2.60 (1.90-3.15), and Stag 3.90 (1.25-5.15). The maximum impact height for Shock Doctor was significantly higher than for SISU, Stag, and the control (all P < .05), but did not differ significantly from Dita (P = .43) and Elysee (P = .12).
conclusionShock Doctor had the highest maximum impact height compared to the other mouthguards and appears to be the most effective mouthguard tested in this study.
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.