Xue Xuan Qin, Carla Zamora-Olave, Eva Willaert, Jordi Martinez-Gomis
{"title":"Satisfaction with Labial Reinforcement of Custom-Made Mouthguards Among a Cohort of Rugby Union Players: A Randomized Crossover Trial.","authors":"Xue Xuan Qin, Carla Zamora-Olave, Eva Willaert, Jordi Martinez-Gomis","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess satisfaction and preference among rugby union players for custom mouthguards with and without labial reinforcement, and to assess discomfort and perceived protection.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective RCT used a crossover design of four 1-week periods to compare conventional (Type A) and labial reinforced (Type B) customized mouthguards for rugby union players from February to May 2022. Type B mouthguards included a 0.75-mm insert of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (Duran) in the anterior labial region. We ensured intraoral occlusion accommodation for both mouthguards. Players wore each mouthguard type when training and in competitive matches for 2 weeks according to one of two randomized sequences. After each session, they rated the mouthguard on 10-point scales regarding discomfort, functional interference, protection, and general satisfaction. After 4 weeks, we asked participants to nominate their preferred mouthguard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 22 of the 24 invited players (16 men and 6 women) were included. We observed no significant differences in discomfort, functional interference, protection, or general satisfaction by mouthguard type (P > .05, Wilcoxon test). Ultimately, 12 players (55%) preferred the Type A mouthguard and 10 (45%) preferred the Type B mouthguard (P = .832; one-sample binomial test). No serious adverse events occurred.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Labial reinforcement does not affect satisfaction, perceived comfort and protection, or mouthguard preference among rugby union players.</p>","PeriodicalId":50292,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","volume":" ","pages":"386-393"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8444","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To assess satisfaction and preference among rugby union players for custom mouthguards with and without labial reinforcement, and to assess discomfort and perceived protection.
Materials and methods: This prospective RCT used a crossover design of four 1-week periods to compare conventional (Type A) and labial reinforced (Type B) customized mouthguards for rugby union players from February to May 2022. Type B mouthguards included a 0.75-mm insert of polyethylene terephthalate glycol (Duran) in the anterior labial region. We ensured intraoral occlusion accommodation for both mouthguards. Players wore each mouthguard type when training and in competitive matches for 2 weeks according to one of two randomized sequences. After each session, they rated the mouthguard on 10-point scales regarding discomfort, functional interference, protection, and general satisfaction. After 4 weeks, we asked participants to nominate their preferred mouthguard.
Results: In total, 22 of the 24 invited players (16 men and 6 women) were included. We observed no significant differences in discomfort, functional interference, protection, or general satisfaction by mouthguard type (P > .05, Wilcoxon test). Ultimately, 12 players (55%) preferred the Type A mouthguard and 10 (45%) preferred the Type B mouthguard (P = .832; one-sample binomial test). No serious adverse events occurred.
Conclusions: Labial reinforcement does not affect satisfaction, perceived comfort and protection, or mouthguard preference among rugby union players.
期刊介绍:
Official Journal of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), the International College of Prosthodontists (ICP), the German Society of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science (DGPro), and the Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry (AIOP)
Prosthodontics demands a clinical research emphasis on patient- and dentist-mediated concerns in the management of oral rehabilitation needs. It is about making and implementing the best clinical decisions to enhance patients'' quality of life via applied biologic architecture - a role that far exceeds that of traditional prosthetic dentistry, with its emphasis on materials and techniques. The International Journal of Prosthodontics is dedicated to exploring and developing this conceptual shift in the role of today''s prosthodontist, clinician, and educator alike. The editorial board is composed of a distinguished team of leading international scholars.