Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards

• Autor(a) principal: Reis, P. N. B.
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: Amaro, Ana Paula, Neto, Maria Augusta, Messias, Ana, Ramos, João Carlos, Moreira, Maria
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10316/100855; https://doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.06
• topic: Mouthguard; Impact response; Thermoforming foil; Mechanical testing

Up to this moment, there is no guideline regarding the materials to produce mouthguards. The most used is Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA). Studies indicate that laminating EVA sheets with rigid components could increase the protection capacities of the mouthguards. On the other hand, other studies suggest that only replacement of the material within its structure can increase energy absorption. Therefore, this work aims to evaluate the impact response of four different foils when compared to a 4 mm thickness EVA sheet. Five different materials were subjected to impact tests with energies of 1.72 J, 2.85 J and 4.40 J. In this context was considered the following materials: EVA foils (G1), EVA foils with an EVA foam core (G2), EVA foils with an acetate core (G3), Foils of Erkoloc-pro (G4) and Foils of Ortho IBT resin (G5). Comparisons between the materials were made by qualitative analysis of the average energy-time and load-displacement curves, as well as by comparison of the peak load, maximum displacement, contact time and absorbed energy using the Kruskal-Wallis test. It was possible to conclude that statistically significant differences were found in the energy absorbed (p=0.001). Laminated foils with a soft core (G2) are a good option to produce mouthguards, while EVA foils with an acetate core (G3) and foils of Ortho IBT resin (G5) were declared unsuitable.