Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Impact Energy Absorption of Three Mouthguard Materials for Three Environments

Lunt, Darin R.

Abstract Details

2009, Master of Science, Ohio State University, Dentistry.
In previous studies at The Ohio State University, significant impact energyabsorption differences were found for mouthguard materials tested in dry and wet conditions. Objective: Measure energy absorption of 3 popular mouthguard materials exposed to an artificial saliva (Roxane Laboratories, Columbus, OH) and compare to energy absorption for the dry condition and after conditioning in deionized water. Methods: Thirty specimens with 12.7 cm æmdash; 12.7 cm æmdash; 4 mm dimensions of (a) ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA; T and S Dental and Plastics, Myerstown, PA), (b) Pro-form™ (Dental Resources Inc., Delano, MN), another ethylene vinyl acetate material, and (c) PolyShok™ (Sportsguard Laboratories, Kent, OH), an ethylene vinyl acetate containing polyurethane, were prepared following manufacturer recommendations. Ten specimens of each material were conditioned for 1 h at body temperature (37°C) in the dry condition, deionized water and artificial saliva. Specimens were impacted at 20 mph by a 0.5-inch diameter indenter containing a force transducer (Dynatup Model 9250 HV, Instron Corp., Canton, MA), based upon ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) Standard D3763. Energy absorption was determined from the area under the force-time curve during the impact event (approximately 5 or 7 millisec depending on the material). Groups were compared using ANOVA and the Tukey test. Regions near the impact site were examined with an SEM. Results: Energy absorption values, normalized to specimen thickness (mean ± SD in J/mm), were: (a) Dry: EVA (n = 10) 4.73 ± 0.27, Pro-form™ (n = 10) 3.55 ± 0.25, PolyShok™ (n = 10) 6.32 ± 0.24; (b) DI water: EVA (n = 10) 4.82 ± 0.40, Pro-form™ (n = 10) 3.78 ± 0.33, PolyShok™ (n = 10) 5.87 ± 0.38; (c) Artificial saliva: EVA (n = 10) 5.63 ± 0.49, Pro-form™ (n = 10) 4.01 ± 0.54, PolyShok™ (n = 10) 6.37 ± 0.55. PolyShok™ was the most energy-absorbent material in all three environments. EVA was also significantly more impact resistant than ProForm™ in all three environments. EVA and ProForm™ performed significantly better after saliva conditioning than dry or water conditioned, but Polyshok™ did not show any difference in energy absorption when conditioned in any of the three environments. Characteristic deformation patterns from impact loading were observed for each material. Conclusions: The superior energy absorption for PolyShok™ is attributed to the polyurethane additive.
William Brantley, DDS, PhD (Advisor)
Deborah Mendel, DDS (Committee Member)
Sarandeep Huja, DDS, PhD (Committee Member)
Michael Beck, DDS, MA (Committee Member)
44 p.

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Lunt, D. R. (2009). Impact Energy Absorption of Three Mouthguard Materials for Three Environments [Master's thesis, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1236607924

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Lunt, Darin. Impact Energy Absorption of Three Mouthguard Materials for Three Environments. 2009. Ohio State University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1236607924.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Lunt, Darin. "Impact Energy Absorption of Three Mouthguard Materials for Three Environments." Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 2009. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1236607924

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)