Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2011.49.4.324

Finite element analysis of the effects of mouthguard produced by combination of layers of different materials on teeth and jaw  

So, Woong-Seob (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
Lee, Hyun-Jong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
Choi, Woo-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
Hong, Sung-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
Ryu, Kyung-Hee (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
Choi, Dae-Gyun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.49, no.4, 2011 , pp. 324-332 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the stress distribution of teeth and jaw on load by differentiating property of materials according to each layer of widely used mouthguard. Materials and methods: A Korean adult having normal cranium and mandible was selected to examine. A customized mouthguard was constructed by use of DRUFOMAT plate and DRUFOMAT-TE/-SQ of Dreve Co. according to Signature Mouthguard system. The cranium was scanned by means of computed tomography with 1mm interval. It was modeled with CANTIBio BIONIX/Body Builder program and simulated and interpreted using Alter HyperMesh program. The mouthguard was classified as follows according to the layers. (1) soft guard (Bioplast)(SG) (2) hard guard (Duran)(HG) (3) medium guard (Drufomat)(MG) (4) soft layer + hard layer (SG + HG) (5) hard layer + soft layer (HG + SG) (6) soft layer + hard layer + soft layer (SG + HG + SG) (7) hard layer + soft layer + hard layer (HG + SG + HG) The impact locations on mandible were gnathion, the center of inferior border, and the anterior edge of gonial angle. And the impact directions were oblique ($45^{\circ}$). The impact load was 800 N for 0.1 sec. The stress distribution was measured at maxillary teeth, TMJ and maxilla. The statistics were conducted using Repeated ANOVA and in case of difference, Duncan test was used as post analysis. Results: In teeth and maxilla, the mouthguard contacting soft layer of mandibular teeth presented lowest stress measure and, in contrast, in condyle, the mouthguard contacting hard layer of mandibular teeth presented lowest stress measure. Conclusion: For all impact directions, soft layer + hard layer + soft layer, the mouthguard with three layers which the hard layer is sandwiched between two soft layers, showed relatively even distribution of stress in impact.
Keywords
FEM analysis; Mouthguard; Stress distribution; Soft layer; Hard layer;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Wei SH. Prevention of injuries to anterior teeth. Int Dent J 1974;24:30-49.
2 Oikarinen KS, Salonen MA. Introduction to four custom-made mouth protectors constructed of single and double layers for activists in contact sports. Endod Dent Traumatol 1993;9:19-24.   DOI
3 Stenger JM, Lawton EA, Wright JM, Ricketts J. Mouthguards: protection against shock to head, neck and teeth. Basal Facts 1987;9:133-9.
4 Hickey JC, Morris AL, Carlson LD, Seward TE. The relation of mouth protectors to cranial pressure and deformation. J Am Dent Assoc 1967;74:735-40.   DOI
5 Cho SJ, Kim YG. The sturdy on mandibular fracture mechanism using dynamic 3-dimensional finite analysis. J Korean Assoc Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;24:470-81.
6 Fabra-Campos H, Dalmases FJ, Buendia M, Cibria｀n RM. Dynamic resistance of teeth: technical considerations and applications of an experimental device. Endod Dent Traumatol 1991;7:10-4.   DOI
7 Wehner PJ, Henderson D. Maximum prevention and preservation: an achievement of intraoral mouth protectors. Dent Clin North Am 1965;25:493-8.
8 Wood AW. Head protection-cranial, facial and dental in contact sports. Oral Health 1972;62:23-33.
9 Andreasen FM, Daugaard-Jensen J. Treatment of traumatic dental injuries in children. Curr Opin Dent 1991;1:535-50.
10 Chapman PJ. Concussion in contact sports and importance of mouthguards in protection. Aust J Sci Med Sport 1985;17:23-7.
11 Ranalli DN. Prevention of craniofacial injuries in football. Dent Clin North Am 1991;35:627-45.
12 Ranalli DN. Sports dentistry and dental traumatology. Dent Traumatol 2002;18:231-6.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Chaconas SJ, Caputo AA, Bakke NK. A comparison of athletic mouthguard materials. Am J Sports Med 1985;13:193-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Taniguchi H, Ueno T, Sasaki Y, Sumita Y, Yamanaka T, Ohyama T, Wang K. Influence of MORA on isometric muscle strength of upper appendage during shoulder adduction. J Sports Dent 1998;1:31-9.
15 Woodmansey KF. Athletic mouth guards prevent orofacial injuries. J Am Coll Health 1997;45:179-82.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Winters LR, Schmitt LC. Tooth preservation in contact sports. Report on a pilot program in Contra Costa County. J California Dent Assn 1961;37:368-70.
17 Barth JT, Freeman JR, Winters JE. Management of sports-related concussions. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44:67-83.
18 Bass EH, Williams FA. A comparison of custom vs. standard mouth guards. A preliminary study. NY State Dent J 1989;55:74-6.
19 Kumaresan S, Radhakrishnan S. Importance of partitioning membranes of the brain and the influence of the neck in head injury modelling. Med Biol Eng Comput 1996;34:27-32.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Iwata T, Watase J, Kuroda T, Tsutsumi S, Maruyama T. Studies of mechanical effects of occlusal force on mandible and temporomandibular joint. J Osaka Univ Dent Sch 1981;21:207-15.
21 Tanaka E, Tanne K, Sakuda M. A three-dimensional finite element model of the mandible including the TMJ and its application to stress analysis in the TMJ during clenching. Med Eng Phys 1994;16:316-22.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Miyazaki M, Inage H, Onose H. Use of an ultrasonic device for the determination of elastic modulus of dentin. J Oral Sci 2002; 44:19-26.   DOI   ScienceOn