method used to form mouthguards should be carefully selected in order
to obtain their full preventive benefits. The aim of this study was to
examine the differences of mouthguard characteristics according to the
Materials and methods
sheets of 3.8-mm ethylene vinyl acetate were vacuum-formed and
pressure-formed on a working model. The sheets were formed when heating
causing them to displace 15 mm from baseline. Mouthguard thickness was
measured at the labial surface of the central incisor, the buccal
surface of the first molar, and the occlusal surface of the first molar.
The fit of the mouthguard was measured at the central incisor and the
first molar. Differences in the thickness and fit between the
vacuum-formed and pressure-formed mouthguards were analyzed by two-way
analysis of variance and the Bonferroni method.
thickness varied between the central incisors and first molars (P <
0.01). The thicknesses at the labial surface of the central incisor and
the buccal surface of the first molar were greater in the vacuum-formed
mouthguards than in the pressure-formed mouthguards (P < 0.01). The
fit was better in the pressure-formed mouthguards than that in the
vacuum-formed mouthguards (P < 0.01).
The vacuum-forming method maintained the mouthguard thickness while the pressure-forming method obtained better fit.