ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Shock Absorption Behavior of Elastic Polymers for Sports Mouthguards: An In Vitro Comparison of Thermoplastic Forming and Additive Manufacturing.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Optimization of 3D Printing Parameters for the Production of Mouthguards.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026Article
- Effect of Antimicrobial Filler on Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA) Composites Property.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The production and materials of mouthguards: Conventional vs additive manufacturing - A systematic review.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are several in vitro testing options to investigate the efficacy of sports mouthguards. None of these represent everyday situations, but the effects of simple laws of physics can be observed. This enables the comparison of conventional materials for mouthguards towards fabrications from additive manufacturing.
methodsA ball-drop experiment measured the maximum force and temporospatial distribution of a vertical impact on six material groups and a reference group (No-MG). Three conventional materials (ethylenvinylacetate) with 1, 2, and 3 layers were compared with additively manufactured (AM) specimens of comparable layering with a respective thickness of 4 mm, 5 mm, and 6.8 mm.
resultsA maximum force of 8982.35 N ± 305.18 (No-MG) was maximum damped to 2470.60 N ± 87.00 (conventional 6.8 mm) compared with 5585.09 N ± 203.99 (AM 6.8 mm) Thereby, the ratio between shock absorption per millimeter was best for 4 mm thickness with means of 1722 N (conventional) and 624 N (AM).
conclusionsPolymer layers demonstrated a force reduction up to 71.68%. For now, additively processed resins of comparable hardness and layering are inferior to conventional fabrications.
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.