Satisfaction with Labial Reinforcement of Custom-Made Mouthguards Among a Cohort of Rugby Union Players: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE International Journal of Prosthodontics Pub Date : 2024-08-23 DOI:10.11607/ijp.8444
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 &#61; .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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一批橄榄球联盟球员对定制护齿的唇部加固的满意度:随机交叉试验。
目的:评估橄榄球联盟球员对有唇部加固和无唇部加固定制护齿的满意度和偏好,并评估不适感和感知保护:这项前瞻性 RCT 采用交叉设计,从 2022 年 2 月到 5 月,在四个为期 1 周的时间段内对橄榄球联盟球员使用的常规(A 型)和唇部加固(B 型)定制护齿进行比较。B 型护齿包括在前唇区域插入 0.75 毫米的聚对苯二甲酸乙二醇(Duran)。我们确保两种护齿都能适应口内咬合。球员在训练和比赛时佩戴每种类型的护齿,按照两种随机顺序中的一种进行为期两周的训练和比赛。每次训练后,他们都会对护齿的不适感、功能干扰、保护性和总体满意度进行 10 级评分。4 周后,我们请参与者提名他们喜欢的护齿:在 24 名受邀球员中,共有 22 名球员(16 名男性和 6 名女性)参加了此次活动。我们观察到,不同类型的护齿在不适感、功能干扰、保护性和总体满意度方面没有明显差异(P > .05,Wilcoxon 检验)。最终,12 名球员(55%)更喜欢 A 型护齿,10 名球员(45%)更喜欢 B 型护齿(P = .832; 单样本二项式检验)。未发生严重不良事件:结论:唇部加固不会影响橄榄球运动员的满意度、舒适度和保护感,也不会影响他们对护齿的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Prosthodontics
International Journal of Prosthodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
A Comparison of Abutment Screw Loosening in 24-Degree Angulation-Correcting and Straight Implants: An In Vitro Study. Analysis of Topography, Flexural Strength, and Microstructure of a Lithium Disilicate Glass- Ceramic after Surface Finishing. Aging and Fracture Resistance of Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Molar Crowns Fabricated from Lithium Disilicate Containing Virgilite. Comparison Between Interocclusal Registration Using Silicone Bite Registration Material and Intraoral Scanner on Clenching Strength. Satisfaction with Labial Reinforcement of Custom-Made Mouthguards Among a Cohort of Rugby Union Players: A Randomized Crossover Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1