Skip to Main Content
Frequently Asked Questions
Submit an ETD
Global Search Box
Need Help?
Keyword Search
Participating Institutions
Advanced Search
School Logo
Files
File List
osu1236607924.pdf (3.84 MB)
ETD Abstract Container
Abstract Header
Impact Energy Absorption of Three Mouthguard Materials for Three Environments
Author Info
Lunt, Darin R.
Permalink:
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1236607924
Abstract Details
Year and Degree
2009, Master of Science, Ohio State University, Dentistry.
Abstract
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.
Committee
William Brantley, DDS, PhD (Advisor)
Deborah Mendel, DDS (Committee Member)
Sarandeep Huja, DDS, PhD (Committee Member)
Michael Beck, DDS, MA (Committee Member)
Pages
44 p.
Subject Headings
Dental Care
Recommended Citations
Refworks
EndNote
RIS
Mendeley
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)
Abstract Footer
Document number:
osu1236607924
Download Count:
3,836
Copyright Info
© 2009, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.