SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.72 issue2Xerostomia and salivary flow rates in HIV patients author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand



Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google


South African Dental Journal

On-line version ISSN 0375-1562
Print version ISSN 0011-8516


MOHAMED, N et al. A comparative study to determine the shock absorption ability of two popular mouth guards available on the South African market. S. Afr. dent. j. [online]. 2017, vol.72, n.2, pp.68-71. ISSN 0375-1562.

It is expected that most mouth guards will provide some level of protection to teeth. In this study a device was developed to measure the relative impact absorption of two different mouth guards (Proform, Type III vacuum-formed and Max, Type IV pressure laminate). Seven of each of the two types of mouth guards were made and each batch was exposed to between six and 10 impact trials. RESULTS: The variations in shock absorption between the batches per mouth guard were found to be not statistically significant on a 1% significance level (two-way ANOVA and the Tukey multiple comparison test). Furthermore, impact absorption on the control where no mouth guard was in place, was more than four times lower. The Max mouth guard was found to be superior with a shock absorption value of 88%. It is advised that a mouth guard should always be used in all contact sports. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows that the two tested mouth guards (Max and Proform) have the ability to significantly reduce the force of an impact on teeth.

        · text in English     · English ( pdf )


Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License