<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE Articles SYSTEM "HBI_DTD">
<Articles><Article><Journal><PublisherName></PublisherName><JournalTitle>International Journal of Preventive Medicine (Int J Prev Med)</JournalTitle><Issn>2008-7802</Issn><Volume>9</Volume><Issue>7</Issue><PubDate PubStatus="epublish"><Year>2018</Year><Month>07</Month><Day>07</Day></PubDate></Journal><title locale="en_US">Preliminary Investigation of a Novel Mouthguard</title><FirstPage>1932</FirstPage><LastPage>1932</LastPage><Language>EN</Language><AuthorList><Author><affiliation locale="en_US">Department of Restorative Dentistry, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario N6A‑3K7</affiliation></Author></AuthorList><History><PubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2018</Year><Month>07</Month><Day>07</Day></PubDate></History><abstract locale="en_US">&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle0"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle2"&gt;Mouthguards (MGs) remain an important piece of personal protection for athletes for the prevention of injury. Although MGs provide tremendous benefts, the design and fabrication process does not record the position of the mandible or the occlusion, which could lead to injury. This study compared a novel MG to over‑the‑counter (OTC) and custom MGs on a skull model. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle0"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle2"&gt;The OTC MG was formed as per manufacturer’s guidelines, the custom MG was laboratory fabricated, and the novel MG was fabricated through a proprietary process. Each group of the three MGs was&lt;br /&gt;assessed for vertical dimension change, occlusal contacts, and condylar displacement. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle0"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle2"&gt;Average number of occlusal contacts for the OTC, custom and novel MG were 2.4, 4.0, and 10, respectively. There was a signifcant difference between all values (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle3"&gt;P &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle2"&gt;&amp;lt; 0.05). Average change in vertical dimension for the OTC, custom, and novel MG were 15.3 mm, 9.3 mm, and 8.0 mm, respectively. The novel MG value was signifcantly different (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle3"&gt;P &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle2"&gt;&amp;lt; 0.05). The average distance of condylar displacement for the OTC, custom and novel MG were 1.9 mm, 1.3 mm and 0.6 mm, respectively.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle0"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle2"&gt;The novel MG was signifcantly different (&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle3"&gt;P &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle2"&gt;&amp;lt; 0.05). The data from this preliminary investigation suggests that the novel mouthguard had maximized occlusal contacts, minimized vertical dimension change and condylar displacement as compared to OTC and custom MGs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle0" style="color: #00652e;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Keywords&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="fontstyle3"&gt;Occlusion, oral appliance, vertical dimension&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/p&gt;</abstract><web_url>http://ijpm.mui.ac.ir/index.php/ijpm/article/view/1932</web_url><pdf_url>http://ijpm.mui.ac.ir/index.php/ijpm/article/download/1932/717717757</pdf_url></Article></Articles>
