Prioritizing model trimming to prevent thinning during mouthguard thermoforming: Influence of increased height associated with an acute model angle

BACKGROUND/AIM

The shape of the working model is one of the major factors affecting the thickness of thermoformed mouthguards. The aim of this study was to clarify the priority of model trimming to prevent thinning during mouthguard thermoforming.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Mouthguards were thermoformed using 4.0 mm thick ethylene-vinyl-acetate sheets and a vacuum forming machine. Working models were trimmed so that the angles of the labial surface to the model base were 100°, 90°, and 80°. The posterior height was unified to 30 mm, and the anterior heights were 30 mm (A100-L), 35 mm (A90-M), and 40 mm (A80-H), respectively. When the sheet temperature reached 100°C, vacuum forming was performed. Six specimens were formed for each condition. Mouthguard thickness (incisal edge, labial surface, cusp, and buccal surface) was measured using a specialized caliper accurate to 0.1 mm. Differences in thickness reduction rate due to model shapes were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni's multiple comparison tests.

RESULTS

At the incisal edge, there were no significant differences in the reduction rate of the thickness of the mouthguard according to model shapes. On the labial surface, cusp, and buccal surface, the smaller the model angle, the smaller the reduction rate of thickness, and significant differences were observed between A100-L and A80-H, and A90-M and A80-H. On the labial and buccal surfaces, A80-H was more than 7.1% thicker compared with A100-L and more than 5.6% thicker compared with A90-M, and the thickness reduction rate was reduced when the model was trimmed to an acute angle. At the cusp, A80-H was more than 4.3% thicker than A100-L and A90-M.

CONCLUSIONS

It is useful to trim the model at an acute angle in order to prevent thinning during mouthguard thermoforming, even if the anterior height of the model is increased.

Effect on thickness of a single-layer mouthguard of positional relationship between suction port of the vacuum forming device and the model

BACKGROUND/AIM

Wearing a mouthguard reduces the risk of sport-related injuries, but the thickness has a large effect on its efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect on the thickness of a single-layer mouthguard of the positional relationship between the suction port of the vacuum forming device and the model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethylene-vinyl-acetate sheets of 4.0-mm-thickness and a vacuum forming machine were used. Two hard plaster models were prepared: Model A was 25-mm at the anterior teeth and 20-mm at the molar, and model B was trimmed so the bucco-lingual width was half that of model A. Three model positions on the forming table were examined: (a) P20, where the model anterior rim was located in front of the suction port, (b) P30, where the model anterior rim and front edge of the suction port were close, and (c) P43, where the model anterior rim and palatal rim were located on the suction port. Six mouthguards were fabricated for each condition. Thickness differences due to model form and model position were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thickness differences due to model form were observed at the incisal edge and labial surface, and model A was significantly thicker than model B in P43 (P<.01). The thickness of the incisal edge and labial surface was significantly greatest in P43 for model A, but in P30 for model B.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of the model position on the forming table on suppressing the labial thickness reduction of the mouthguard depended on the bucco-lingual width of the model. It is important to position the model anterior rim away from the sheet frame if the bucco-lingual width of the model is large and to place the model anterior rim in front of the suction port if the width is small.