Two prime considerations for a mouthguard are that it has a good fit and that it is comfortable to wear. If a mouthguard does not stay in place well or if it irritates the mouth (the teeth or the soft tissues of the mouth) then it is unlikely that the athlete will wear it, or at least not wear it all of the time. Clearly a sports guard can only provide protection for the mouth when it is in place.
If a mouthguard is not comfortable an athlete may try to adjust it by trimming off a portion of the guard. In some cases this customization can compromise the level of protection that it can provide. If the fit of a mouthguard is too loose an athlete will have a tendency to hold it in place by way of clenching their teeth together. This clenching activity can interfere with the athlete's breathing or ability to speak, thus providing a reason for the athlete not to wear it.
Most mouthguards are designed so they cover over just the teeth and gums of the upper jaw, not the lower jaw. From an anatomical standpoint the upper and lower jaws are quite different. The lower jaw is capable of motion (the jaw can open, close, slide left, right, forward, or backward). This freedom of motion helps to mitigate the intensity of a force that lands on the lower jaw.
In comparison the upper jaw is fixed in position. While it would be expected that a person's head would rebound in response to a blow, the fixed nature of the upper jaw bone and teeth place them at great risk for receiving the full force of the trauma (greater than a comparable force landing on the lower jaw). This difference in anatomy is one reason why the upper front teeth are the most likely teeth to be damaged in a traumatic event. And this is why the design of a mouthguard must always provide protection for the upper jaw.
A mouthguard can be designed so that it does cover over the teeth and gums of both the upper and lower jaws. This type of dual arch design can provide some protection for the lower teeth, jaw, and possibly can even help to protect the jaw joint somewhat. A criticism of dual coverage mouthguards is, however, that they can be more difficult to wear, thus providing a reason why the athlete may not always wear their guard. This type of mouthguard design can be good for those athletes who wear braces.
A mouthguard should be shaped so it covers over all of the athlete's teeth on the jaw on which the guard is worn. It has been suggested that mouthguards that do not cover over the majority of back teeth may put the athlete at greater risk of lower jaw fracture.
Two variables that are important in a mouthguard's design are its thickness (and accompanying resiliency) and its overall stiffness. Conceivably the resiliency of a guard can help to absorb some of the intensity of forces directed to the mouth. Possibly more important however, the overall stiffness of a guard will help to distribute the forces of a blow over a larger surface area, thus helping to diminish the intensity of the blow to any one tooth or region of the mouth.
The type of forceful contact that an athlete might reasonably be expected to experienced will vary from sport to sport. It would be anticipated that a football player might have a greater expectation of receiving a forceful blow than a tennis player. Along these lines of thought, an athlete participating in a sport where a high degree of traumatic contact would not be the norm might find that a mouthguard fabricated from plastic on the order of 1/16th of an inch thick (2mm) could be considered reasonable protection. Heavy contact sports such as football would probably necessitate that a mouthguard should be created from plastic at least 1/8th of an inch (4mm) or more on all surfaces of the guard. A thicker guard yet would be required for extreme contact sports such as boxing.
Send this page to a friend.
Bookmark / social bookmark this page.