ArticleBMC oral health2025
How do palatal extensions and brands affect the retention of custom-made mouthguards? An in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRetention performance is a prerequisite for the protective effect of custom-made mouthguards (MGs). The current study aimed to evaluate the influence of palatal extensions and brands on the retention of MGs and to provide a theoretical basis for designing comfortable MGs.
methodsUsing an optimized fully dentate maxillary anatomical teaching model, two brands of sports MGs (Erkoflex (E) and Supsmile (S)) were created, with each brand preparing three identical splints, resulting in a total of six groups (E
resultsThe length of the palatal edge significantly affects the retention force of the MG (p < 0.001), with longer edges resulting in higher retention forces. The influence of different brands (S and E) on the retention force of the MG is minimal; trend analysis indicates that 86.9% of the retention force of S brand MGs can be explained by the palatal extension, while for E brand MGs, this figure is 88.6%.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this experimental study, different extension ranges of the palatal edge of the MG significantly influence its retention, with longer palatal extensions yielding higher retention rates. Additionally, under the constraints of S brand and E brand, the brand of the splint does not significantly contribute to the retention of the MG.
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.