Thinning factors influence on custom-made mouthguards thermoforming

• Published in: Dental traumatology 2015-04, Vol.31 (2), p.103-112
• Main Authors: Kojima, Ichiro, Takeda, Tomotaka, Nakajima, Kazunori, Narimatsu, Keishiro, Konno, Michiyo, Ozawa, Takamitsu, Ishigami, Keiichi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acrylic Resins - chemistry; air pressure type; Dental Models; Dentistry; Elasticity; Equipment Design; Hardness; Hot Temperature; Humans; Materials Testing; Mouth Protectors; mouthguard; Polyethylenes - chemistry; Polyvinyls - chemistry; Pressure; prevention; Surface Properties; thermoforming; thinning; Vacuum; vacuum type
• ISSN: 1600-4469; 1600-9657
• DOI: 10.1111/edt.12145

The aim of this study was to clarify and quantify factors influencing thinning during a thermoforming using a special simulation model that has three different flat surfaces such as 0 degree, 45 degree and 90 degree against a pressurizing force. Air pressure type samples were made by EVA and acrylic resin blank. Vacuum type samples were also made by EVA. Thickness gauge was employed to measure the thickness. As results, pressure forming showed significantly larger thinning at 45 and 90 degree surfaces and smaller thinning at 0 degree surface, 36% in thinning rate by vacuum forming and 66% by the pressure forming at 90 degree surface, and 17% and 20% at 45 degree surface, and 11% and 2% at 0 degree surfaces. Thinning was increased with the increase in distance from the centre in 0 degree surface and increased with the decrease in height in the vertical surface significantly. The air pressure, the material thickness in EVA (Drufosoft) and difference in material colour did not affect thinning rate. An acrylic resin material showed approximately 10% smaller thinning than EVA (Drufosoft). To retain enough thickness of 3 mm on 90 degree surface corresponding to an incisal labial aspect for pressure laminate type, over 55% reduction is taken into consideration and at least two 3‐mm‐thickness materials should be laminated. 0 degree surface showed at most 2 % reduction in pressure lamination; post thermoforming occlusal thickness became almost 6 mm with a usual 3 mm plus 3 mm lamination. Therefore, careful occlusal adjustment in an actual mouthguard fabrication to achieve an appropriate 2 mm thickness on this surface should be requested.