Citation

Shore E, O'Connell AC. Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent. 2022; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2022, European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, Publisher Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s40368-022-00763-1

PMID

36394781

PMCID

PMC9669524

Abstract

PURPOSE: Traumatic dental injuries occur during participation in sports. Prevention of these injuries by wearing a mouthguard (MG) is desirable, especially in a paediatric population. There are several types of MG available, and their effectiveness depends on device design. The aim of this study was to examine the features of MG worn by children playing a contact sport (Gaelic football), and to determine whether these MG fulfilled recommendations for adequate dentoalveolar protection.

METHODS: A cross-sectional observational cohort study design was developed. Dentists were trained and calibrated in assessing MGs, both qualitatively (retention, extension, integrity) and quantitatively (thickness). A convenience sample of male and female subjects aged 9-16 years was selected for MG assessment via their sports clubs. Data were collected anonymously and analysed using descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS: One hundred and six children presented with their MG for assessment. Two-thirds were wearing mouth-formed MG (N = 71, 66.96%). Only four were wearing custom MG (3.77%). Most MG had inadequate retention (N = 86, 81.13%) and labial extension (N = 89, 83.96%), with a significant relationship between MG type and retention. Mouthguard thickness varied widely at each site. Mouth-formed MG were significantly thicker than both stock and custom MG.

CONCLUSIONS: Mouth-formed MG were the most common type followed by stock MG. Most MG did not have appropriate retention or labial extension. Parents and coaches need to be aware of MG features that maximise protection. If mouth-formed MG are provided in this age group, education on how to adapt them is essential. Paediatric dentists should check MG routinely for appropriate fit.

Language: en

Keywords

Protection; Thickness; Quality; Dental trauma; Mouthguard; Paediatric; Retention