Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34061175›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2022

What are the differences in protective characteristics of orthodontic mouthguards? An in vitro study.

Claire Harrington, Gursharan Minhas, Spyridon N Papageorgiou, Martyn T Cobourne

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Claire HarringtonDepartment of Orthodontics, The Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Gursharan MinhasDepartment of Orthodontics, The Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Spyridon N PapageorgiouClinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1968-3326
Martyn T CobourneCentre for Craniofacial Development & Regeneration, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2857-0315
King's College London · GBRoyal Surrey County Hospital · GBUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOrthodontic patients wearing fixed appliances are susceptible to traumatic dental injuries during contact-sport. This laboratory study investigated the protective qualities of orthodontic mouthguards using impact-testing to a typodont fitted with a fixed appliance through peak load transfer and retention of the mouthguard.

methodsSeven orthodontic mouthguards [three custom-made (Medium-CM, Heavy-CM, Heavy-pro-CM); three commercially-available mouth-formed (Shock-Doctor® Ultra Braces, Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces, Opro® Ortho-Bronze Braces) and a Shock-Doctor® Instant-Fit] were fitted to a maxillary arch typodont bonded with a fixed appliance and impact-tested using 0.5 or 1 Joule (J) energy via hockey-ball, cricket-ball or steel-ball projectile. A load-cell recorded peak load transfer through mouthguard to typodont with retention scored in a binary manner dependent upon any displacement following impact. Differences across mouthguards were calculated with ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test for normal and non-normal data, respectively. Post hoc comparisons across mouthguards were conducted via Dunnett's test with Sidak correction.

resultsOnly the three custom-made and Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces were not displaced by impact-testing. For these, Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces transferred the smallest load for 3/6 impact-tests, followed by Medium-CM. Heavy-pro-CM performed poorly, ranking penultimate or worst for all impact-tests. Significant differences were found between mouthguards for cricket-ball and steel-ball set-ups. The Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces performed better than the Heavy and Heavy-pro-CM for 0.5 J cricket-ball impact-test (P < 0.05), whilst Medium-CM performed better than Heavy-pro-CM. For 1 J cricket-ball, there were significant differences between Medium-CM and Heavy-pro-CM (P < 0.05). For 0.5 J steel-ball, the Medium-CM performed significantly better than both Heavy-pro-CM and Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces (P < 0.05), whilst Heavy-CM performed better than the Heavy-pro-CM (P < 0.05). For the 1 J steel-ball, Medium and Heavy-CM performed better than Opro® Ortho-Gold Braces (P < 0.05).

conclusionsOpro® Ortho-Gold and Medium-CM mouthguards offer the best protection for low-impact sports, whilst Medium or Heavy-CM mouthguards are recommended for high-impact sport.

Indexed as

HockeyMouth ProtectorsEquipment DesignHumansMouth

Identifiers

PMID34061175
PMCPMC8789267
OpenAlexW3165622046

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.