Citation

Brionnet JM, Roger-Leroi V, Tubert-Jeannin S, Garson A. Community Dent. Oral. Epidemiol. 2001; 29(3): 234-238.

Affiliation

UFR d'Odontologie, Clermont-Ferrand, France

Copyright

(Copyright © 2001, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

11409683

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the comfort of two bimaxillary custom-fitted mouthguards. One type was made with silicone rubber and the other with methyl-methacrylate (acrylic). METHODS: The study was a within-subject crossover clinical trial with 52 high-school rugby players who were randomly allocated to one of two groups. The first group wore a silicone mouthguard for 4 months and an acrylic one for the following 4-month period. The second group wore an acrylic mouthguard followed by a silicone one for similar periods. Comfort, bulkiness, stability, hardness, ability to talk and to breathe, oral dryness, nausea and inclination to chew were evaluated for each period using a Visual Analogue Scale questionnaire. RESULTS: There was no significant difference concerning comfort, bulkiness, ability to talk and to breathe, oral dryness and nausea between silicone and acrylic mouthguards by group and time of examination (Three-way ANOVA P>0.05). Acrylic mouthguards were more stable and harder than silicone ones (Wilcoxon's test P<0.01). Tendency to chew was greater for silicone appliances (P<0.01). For stability, hardness and inclination to chew, there was no significant difference in the response of the players based on the sequence of use of the two types of mouthguard during the survey (Mann-Whitney test P>0.05). At the end of the study, 56% of the players preferred to keep the acrylic mouthguard and 44% chose the silicone one. This choice did not vary between the groups (chi2, P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Silicone rubber mouthguards were well accepted by the players but technical improvements in silicone materials are needed to improve hardness and stability of silicone mouthguards for sport.