Impact energy absorption of three mouthguard materials in three environments.

The objective of this study was to compare the impact energy absorption of three mouthguard materials in three environments. Thirty specimens with 12.7 cm x 12.7 cm x 4 mm dimensions were prepared for each material: ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA, T&S Dental and Plastics), Pro-form (Dental Resources Inc), and PolyShok (Sportsguard Laboratories). Ten specimens of each material were conditioned for 1 h at 37 degrees C in three environments: dry (ambient) condition, deionized water and artificial saliva. Specimens were impacted at 20 mph by a 0.5-inch diameter indenter containing a force transducer (Dynatup Model 9250 HV, Instron Corp), based upon ASTM Standard D3763. Energy absorption was determined from the area under the force-time curve during impact (approximately 5 or 7 ms depending on the material). Groups were compared using anova and the Tukey test. Energy absorption values, normalized to specimen thickness (mean +/- SD in J mm(-1)), were: (i) Dry: EVA 4.73 +/- 0.27, Pro-form 3.55 +/- 0.25, PolyShok 6.32 +/- 0.24; (ii) DI water: EVA 4.82 +/- 0.40, Pro-form 3.78 +/- 0.33, PolyShok 5.87 +/- 0.38; (iii) Artificial saliva: EVA 5.63 +/- 0.49, Pro-form 4.01 +/- 0.54, PolyShok 6.37 +/- 0.55. PolyShok was the most energy-absorbent material in all three environments. EVA was significantly more impact resistant than Pro-form in all three environments. EVA and Pro-form performed significantly better after saliva conditioning than dry or water conditioned, but PolyShok did not show any difference in energy absorption when conditioned in any of the three environments. Characteristic deformation patterns from impact loading were observed with an SEM for each material. The superior energy absorption for PolyShok is attributed to the polyurethane additive.

Impact energy absorption of three mouthguard materials in an aqueous environment.

High impact energy absorption is an essential property for mouthguard materials. The impact test performance of three popular mouthguard materials was evaluated, using the procedure in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D3763. Conventional ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA; T&S Dental and Plastics, Myerstown, PA, USA) served as the control. Pro-form (Dental Resources Inc., Delano, MN, USA), another EVA material, and PolyShok (Sportsguard Laboratories, Kent, OH, USA), an EVA product containing polyurethane were also evaluated. Specimens having dimensions of 3 inch x 3 inch x 4 mm were prepared from each material. After processing that followed manufacturer recommendations, specimens were conditioned for 1 h in 37 degrees C deionized water and loaded at 20 mph by a 0.5 inch diameter indenter containing a force transducer (Dynatup Model 9250 HV; Instron Corp., Canton, MA, USA). Both large-diameter (3 inches) and small-diameter (1.5 inch) support rings were used. For comparison, two specimens of each material were tested in the dry condition. Energy absorption was determined from the area under the force-time curve at 30 ms, and results for the water-conditioned specimens were compared using anova and the Kruskal-Wallis test. For the large-diameter support ring, energy absorption (mean +/- SD in ft x lbf inch(-1)), normalized to specimen thickness, was: EVA (n = 5), 110.2 +/- 48.4; Pro-form (n = 4), 110.0 +/- 11.3; PolyShok (n = 5), 105.7 +/- 16.5. For the small-diameter support ring, energy absorption was: EVA (n = 6), 140.5 +/- 13.9; Pro-form (n = 5), 109.0 +/- 26.0; PolyShok (n = 6), 124.4 +/- 28.4 (1 ft x lbf inch(-1) = 0.534 J cm(-1)). Because of substantial variation within some specimen groups, there was no significant difference in energy absorption for the three water-conditioned mouthguard materials and the two support ring sizes. The energy absorption for each material was much greater for other specimens tested in the dry condition.

Temperature-modulated DSC provides new insight about nickel-titanium wire transformations.

Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) is a well-known method for investigating phase transformations in nickel-titanium orthodontic wires; the microstructural phases and phase transformations in these wires have central importance for their clinical performance. The purpose of this study was to use the more recently developed technique of temperature-modulated DSC (TMDSC) to gain insight into transformations in 3 nickel-titanium orthodontic wires: Neo Sentalloy (GAC International, Islandia, NY), 35 degrees C Copper Ni-Ti (Ormco, Glendora, Calif) and Nitinol SE (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). In the oral environment, the first 2 superelastic wires have shape memory, and the third wire has superelastic behavior but not shape memory. All wires had cross-section dimensions of 0.016 x 0.022 in. Archwires in the as-received condition and after bending 135 degrees were cut into 5 or 6 segments for test specimens. TMDSC analyses (Model 2910 DSC, TA Instruments, Wilmington, Del) were conducted between -125 degrees C and 100 degrees C, using a linear heating and cooling rate of 2 degrees C per min, an oscillation amplitude of 0.318 degrees C with a period of 60 seconds, and helium as the purge gas. For all 3 wire alloys, strong low-temperature martensitic transformations, resolved on the nonreversing heat-flow curves, were not present on the reversing heat-flow curves, and bending appeared to increase the enthalpy change for these peaks in some cases. For Neo Sentalloy, TMDSC showed that transformation between martensitic and austenitic nickel-titanium, suggested as occurring directly in the forward and reverse directions by conventional DSC, was instead a 2-step process involving the R-phase. Two-step transformations in the forward and reverse directions were also found for 35 degrees C Copper Ni-Ti and Nitinol SE. The TMDSC results show that structural transformations in these wires are complex. Some possible clinical implications of these observations are discussed.