Trial reportDental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology2026
Comfort and Usability of Digital Versus Conventional Custom-Fit Mouthguards: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- New Frontiers in Dental Traumatology: Innovation, Prevention, and Clinical Practice.Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe use of mouthguards protects teeth and the supporting tissues against impacts. Digital impressions and 3D-printed models can reduce manufacturing steps and minimize discomfort. This study evaluated the fit, comfort, and usability of custom-made mouthguards, obtained by conventional and digital workflow, in amateur athletes. MATERIALS AND
methodsAmateur athletes were recruited for this randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical study. Each participant received two 4-mm-thick custom-fit mouthguards made of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) sheets using two protocols: conventional impression using alginate to produce dental stone cast (CMP) and intraoral digital scanning to produce 3D-printed resin models (DMP). Each mouthguard was worn during all training and matches over 3 months. The order of mouthguard use was randomly assigned. Patient satisfaction with the impression protocol and mouthguard use, model accuracy, and mouthguard fit were assessed.
resultsOverall, 46 participants completed the study. The DMP protocol required less execution time (p = 0.023), caused less discomfort (p = 0.018), anxiety (p = 0.008), nausea (p = 0.027), difficulty breathing (p < 0.001), and unpleasant taste (p = 0.006) compared to the CMP protocol. The pain (p = 0.971) perceived by the participants was similar in both impression protocols. The CMP-mouthguards were considered to be better fitting by the majority of participants (p = 0.027). Between-group comparisons revealed that DMP-mouthguard caused less discomfort immediately postadaptation (p = 0.034), with no significant differences observed at 30 or 90 days.
conclusionsThe digital workflow demonstrated to be efficient in the fabrication of mouthguards. Digital impression was more comfortable, requiring less execution time, with more accurate printed models and produced mouthguards with reported comfort and fit levels similar to those manufactured conventionally.
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.