EVA mouthguards: how thick should they be?

A major consideration in the performance of mouthguards is their ability to absorb energy and reduce transmitted forces when impacted. This is especially important to participants in contact sports such as hockey or football. The thickness of mouthguard materials is directly related to energy absorption and inversely related to transmitted forces when impacted. However, wearer comfort is also an important factor in their use. Thicker mouthguards are not user-friendly. While thickness of material over incisal edges and cusps of teeth is critical, just how thick should a mouthguard be and especially in these two areas? Transmitted forces through different thicknesses of the most commonly used mouthguard material, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) (Shore A Hardness of 80) were compared when impacted with identical forces which were capable of damaging the oro-facial complex. The constant impact force used in the tests was produced by a pendulum and had an energy of 4.4 joules and a velocity of 3 meters per second. Improvements in energy absorption and reductions in transmitted forces were observed with increasing thickness. However, these improvements lessened when the mouthguard material thickness was greater than 4 mm. The results show that the optimal thickness for EVA mouthguard material with a Shore A Hardness of 80 is around 4 mm. Increased thickness, while improving performance marginally, results in less wearer comfort and acceptance.

Beneficial effects of air inclusions on the performance of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguard material

Objective: To investigate the impact characteristics of an ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguard material with regulated air inclusions, which included various air cell volumes and wall thickness between air cells. In particular, the aim was to identify the magnitude and direction of forces within the impacts. Method: EVA mouthguard material, A mm thick and with and without air inclusions, was impacted with a constant force impact pendulum with an energy of 4.4 J and a velocity of 3 m/s. Transmitted forces through the EVA material were measured using an accelerometer, which also allowed the determination of force direction and magnitude within the impacts. Results: Statistically significant reductions in the transmitted forces were observed with all the air inclusion materials when compared with EVA without air inclusions. Maximum transmitted force through one air inclusion material was reduced by 32%. Force rebound was eliminated in one material, and reduced second force impulses were observed in all the air inclusion materials. Conclusion: The regulated air inclusions improved the impact characteristics of the EVA mouthguard material, the material most commonly used in mouthguards world wide.

Effect of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) closed cell foam on transmitted forces in mouthguard material

Objectives: To compare transmitted forces through ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguard material and the same EVA material with gas inclusions in the form of a closed cell foam. Method: EVA mouthguard materials with and without foam gas inclusions and 4 mm thick were impacted with a constant force from an impact pendulum. Various porosity levels in the foam materials were produced by 1%, 5%, and 10% by weight foaming agent. The forces transmitted through the EVA after energy absorption by the test materials were measured with a force sensor and compared. Results: Only minor non-significant differences in transmitted forces through the EVA with and without foam were shown. Conclusions: The inclusion of gas in the form of a closed cell foam in 4 mm thick EVA mouthguard materials did not improve the impact performance of the EVA mouthguard material.