Search

OBJECTIVE: This study validated the newly adapted electronic SNAPPS (eSNAPPS) against the original paper SNAPPS. Subsequently, the study estimated the prevalence of PFP in running participants and spectators attending three mass-participant running events in the United Kingdom by using the eSNAPPS tool. DESIGN: This study had two parts. Firstly, a validation of the original paper version of the SNAPPS tool. Secondly, if validation was achieved, eSNAPPS was used in a prevalence study. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of running participants and spectators aged 18-40 years attending the mass participation running events. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The 12-month prevalence of PFP. RESULTS: eSNAPPS was valid in identifying those with PFP (ICC 0.99 for Overall agreement, p < 0.0001). In the prevalence study, a total of 1080 running participants and spectators completed the eSNAPPS. The overall prevalence of PFP was 17.4% (95%CI: 15.2%, 19.8%); 20.5% of males (16.5, 24.9) and 15.7% of females (13.1, 18.7) had PFP. Prevalence was 17.4% (15.2, 19.8) in spectators and 16.7% in running participants (14.5, 19.0). CONCLUSION: The overall PFP prevalence in this study was slightly smaller than those previously reported in the literature. Findings also show that there were similar prevalence estimates in spectators and running participants.

OBJECTIVE: This study validated the newly adapted electronic SNAPPS (eSNAPPS) against the original paper SNAPPS. Subsequently, the study estimated the prevalence of PFP in running participants and spectators attending three mass-participant running events in the United Kingdom by using the eSNAPPS tool. DESIGN: This study had two parts. Firstly, a validation of the original paper version of the SNAPPS tool. Secondly, if validation was achieved, eSNAPPS was used in a prevalence study. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of running participants and spectators aged 18-40 years attending the mass participation running events. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The 12-month prevalence of PFP. RESULTS: eSNAPPS was valid in identifying those with PFP (ICC 0.99 for Overall agreement, p < 0.0001). In the prevalence study, a total of 1080 running participants and spectators completed the eSNAPPS. The overall prevalence of PFP was 17.4% (95%CI: 15.2%, 19.8%); 20.5% of males (16.5, 24.9) and 15.7% of females (13.1, 18.7) had PFP. Prevalence was 17.4% (15.2, 19.8) in spectators and 16.7% in running participants (14.5, 19.0). CONCLUSION: The overall PFP prevalence in this study was slightly smaller than those previously reported in the literature. Findings also show that there were similar prevalence estimates in spectators and running participants.

Objective This study validated the newly adapted electronic SNAPPS (eSNAPPS) against the original paper SNAPPS. Subsequently, the study estimated the prevalence of PFP in running participants and spectators attending three mass-participant running events in the United Kingdom by using the eSNAPPS tool. Design This study had two parts. Firstly, a validation of the original paper version of the SNAPPS tool. Secondly, if validation was achieved, eSNAPPS was used in a prevalence study. Participants A convenience sample of running participants and spectators aged 18-40 years attending the mass participation running events. Main outcome measure The 12-month prevalence of PFP. Results: eSNAPPS was valid in identifying those with PFP (ICC 0.99 for Overall agreement, p<0.0001). In the prevalence study, a total of 1,080 running participants and spectators completed the eSNAPPS. The overall prevalence of PFP was 17.4% (95%CI: 15.2%, 19.8%); 20.5% of males (16.5, 24.9) and 15.7% of females (13.1, 18.7) had PFP. Prevalence was 17.4% (15.2, 19.8) in spectators and 16.7% in running participants (14.5, 19.0). Conclusion The overall PFP prevalence in this study was slightly smaller than those previously reported in the literature. Findings also show that there were similar prevalence estimates in spectators and running participants.

Objective This study validated the newly adapted electronic SNAPPS (eSNAPPS) against the original paper SNAPPS. Subsequently, the study estimated the prevalence of PFP in running participants and spectators attending three mass-participant running events in the United Kingdom by using the eSNAPPS tool. Design This study had two parts. Firstly, a validation of the original paper version of the SNAPPS tool. Secondly, if validation was achieved, eSNAPPS was used in a prevalence study. Participants A convenience sample of running participants and spectators aged 18-40 years attending the mass participation running events. Main outcome measure The 12-month prevalence of PFP. Results: eSNAPPS was valid in identifying those with PFP (ICC 0.99 for Overall agreement, p

OBJECTIVE: This study validated the newly adapted electronic SNAPPS (eSNAPPS) against the original paper SNAPPS. Subsequently, the study estimated the prevalence of PFP in running participants and spectators attending three mass-participant running events in the United Kingdom by using the eSNAPPS tool. DESIGN: This study had two parts. Firstly, a validation of the original paper version of the SNAPPS tool. Secondly, if validation was achieved, eSNAPPS was used in a prevalence study. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of running participants and spectators aged 18-40 years attending the mass participation running events. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The 12-month prevalence of PFP. RESULTS: eSNAPPS was valid in identifying those with PFP (ICC 0.99 for Overall agreement, p < 0.0001). In the prevalence study, a total of 1080 running participants and spectators completed the eSNAPPS. The overall prevalence of PFP was 17.4% (95%CI: 15.2%, 19.8%); 20.5% of males (16.5, 24.9) and 15.7% of females (13.1, 18.7) had PFP. Prevalence was 17.4% (15.2, 19.8) in spectators and 16.7% in running participants (14.5, 19.0). CONCLUSION: The overall PFP prevalence in this study was slightly smaller than those previously reported in the literature. Findings also show that there were similar prevalence estimates in spectators and running participants.

OBJECTIVE: This study validated the newly adapted electronic SNAPPS (eSNAPPS) against the original paper SNAPPS. Subsequently, the study estimated the prevalence of PFP in running participants and spectators attending three mass-participant running events in the United Kingdom by using the eSNAPPS tool. DESIGN: This study had two parts. Firstly, a validation of the original paper version of the SNAPPS tool. Secondly, if validation was achieved, eSNAPPS was used in a prevalence study. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of running participants and spectators aged 18-40 years attending the mass participation running events. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The 12-month prevalence of PFP. RESULTS: eSNAPPS was valid in identifying those with PFP (ICC 0.99 for Overall agreement, p < 0.0001). In the prevalence study, a total of 1080 running participants and spectators completed the eSNAPPS. The overall prevalence of PFP was 17.4% (95%CI: 15.2%, 19.8%); 20.5% of males (16.5, 24.9) and 15.7% of females (13.1, 18.7) had PFP. Prevalence was 17.4% (15.2, 19.8) in spectators and 16.7% in running participants (14.5, 19.0). CONCLUSION: The overall PFP prevalence in this study was slightly smaller than those previously reported in the literature. Findings also show that there were similar prevalence estimates in spectators and running participants.

Objective This study validated the newly adapted electronic SNAPPS (eSNAPPS) against the original paper SNAPPS. Subsequently, the study estimated the prevalence of PFP in running participants and spectators attending three mass-participant running events in the United Kingdom by using the eSNAPPS tool. Design This study had two parts. Firstly, a validation of the original paper version of the SNAPPS tool. Secondly, if validation was achieved, eSNAPPS was used in a prevalence study. Participants A convenience sample of running participants and spectators aged 18-40 years attending the mass participation running events. Main outcome measure The 12-month prevalence of PFP. Results: eSNAPPS was valid in identifying those with PFP (ICC 0.99 for Overall agreement, p<0.0001). In the prevalence study, a total of 1,080 running participants and spectators completed the eSNAPPS. The overall prevalence of PFP was 17.4% (95%CI: 15.2%, 19.8%); 20.5% of males (16.5, 24.9) and 15.7% of females (13.1, 18.7) had PFP. Prevalence was 17.4% (15.2, 19.8) in spectators and 16.7% in running participants (14.5, 19.0). Conclusion The overall PFP prevalence in this study was slightly smaller than those previously reported in the literature. Findings also show that there were similar prevalence estimates in spectators and running participants.

Objective This study validated the newly adapted electronic SNAPPS (eSNAPPS) against the original paper SNAPPS. Subsequently, the study estimated the prevalence of PFP in running participants and spectators attending three mass-participant running events in the United Kingdom by using the eSNAPPS tool. Design This study had two parts. Firstly, a validation of the original paper version of the SNAPPS tool. Secondly, if validation was achieved, eSNAPPS was used in a prevalence study. Participants A convenience sample of running participants and spectators aged 18-40 years attending the mass participation running events. Main outcome measure The 12-month prevalence of PFP. Results: eSNAPPS was valid in identifying those with PFP (ICC 0.99 for Overall agreement, p

Athletes, who use mouthguards (MGs) as a protective device, often experience obstruction of airflow and interferences with performance. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of three custom–made MGs (MG1, MG2, MG3), which differed in design and thickness, on respiratory flow and blood lactate during exercise. Fourteen elite male boxers (Age: 26 ± 8 yr; Mass: 80±11) performed newly developed sport specific protocol under laboratory conditions on four occasions – without a MG and with each of the three MGs. The exercise consisted of 4 boxing rounds of 3 mins, with a minute rest after each round. Breath-by-breath analysis (METALYZER® 3B, Cortex) showed that there were no differences in the uptake of oxygen (p > 0.157) between the four conditions. Likewise, the use of different MG did not affect blood lactate accumulation (p = 1.00). However, at the end of the first round the minute ventilation was higher when MG3 was used (86.2 ± 17.5 L/min) compared to MG2 (71.7 ± 13.2) and having no MG (73.7 ± 16.4) (p = 0.002). The fact that a negative effect was not determined on physiological responses could further encourage players to use MGs during both training and competition.

Background/Aims Mouthguard retention could potentially increase an athlete's motivation to wear the device, due to potential improvements in physical comfort. The aim of the present study was to examine the retentive properties of selected customised mouthguard designs, during normal conditions (dry) and within the presence of artificial saliva (wet). Additionally, the correlation between thickness and retention was investigated. Material and Methods Six different custom mouthguard designs (MG1 – MG6) reported in previous studies, were pressure‐formed with 2 mm and 4 mm blanks accordingly. Thickness was measured ten times at seven anatomical points and the mean (±SD) was recorded. A novel rig was fabricated to connect the mouthguards to a Hounsfield H10KS Tensometer, which was used to fully displace each device from the model at a constant rate of 50 mm/min. The test was repeated under both dry and wet conditions. Results Retention forces recorded at the anterior region demonstrated higher measurements under conditions than dry (p < 0.001). The total retention of the mouthguards was influenced by alterations in their design (p < 0.015). Trend analysis indicated that 64% of MG retention could be explained by their thickness under dry conditions and 55% when wet. Conclusions Design and thickness of mouthguards are key factors in retention. Mouthguard fabrication techniques should be considered in order to minimise dislodgment of the devices as well as potentially increasing the wearability of mouthguards during sport.

Background/Aims Mouthguard retention could potentially increase an athlete's motivation to wear the device, due to potential improvements in physical comfort. The aim of the present study was to examine the retentive properties of selected customised mouthguard designs, during normal conditions (dry) and within the presence of artificial saliva (wet). Additionally, the correlation between thickness and retention was investigated. Material and Methods Six different custom mouthguard designs (MG1 – MG6) reported in previous studies, were pressure‐formed with 2 mm and 4 mm blanks accordingly. Thickness was measured ten times at seven anatomical points and the mean (±SD) was recorded. A novel rig was fabricated to connect the mouthguards to a Hounsfield H10KS Tensometer, which was used to fully displace each device from the model at a constant rate of 50 mm/min. The test was repeated under both dry and wet conditions. Results Retention forces recorded at the anterior region demonstrated higher measurements under conditions than dry (p < 0.001). The total retention of the mouthguards was influenced by alterations in their design (p < 0.015). Trend analysis indicated that 64% of MG retention could be explained by their thickness under dry conditions and 55% when wet. Conclusions Design and thickness of mouthguards are key factors in retention. Mouthguard fabrication techniques should be considered in order to minimise dislodgment of the devices as well as potentially increasing the wearability of mouthguards during sport.

Orofacial traumas account for a third from all injuries sustained during contact sports. Wearing a mouthguard (MG) could reduce the risk of such injuries. Yet, there is an underlying belief amongst many players that the device could cause impedances with comfort, breathing and speech. This might be due to the type of MG or athletes knowledge of which one is best. For example, custom-made MGs were found to provide superior protection and fit compared to ‘boil-and-bite’ or stock MGs. The aim of the present study was to examine the current attitudes and awareness of MGs in the UK via online questionnaire. An online survey was distributed to 308 participants via email and social media, which consisted of 18 questions, addressing the usage of mouth protection in different levels of sport (e.g. national/international), rate of dental injuries and common issues previously raised within the literature. The results showed that 23% of the 308 respondents competed at national level, 15% at international and 10% were part of a club. The majority were rugby union players (57%) and the rest participated in sports such as ice hockey (17%), martial arts (5%) and other team sports. It was found that 40% currently wore a customised MG, however many of them had experienced problems with discomfort and breathing. Almost half of the respondents highlighted that they had stopped wearing a MG due to the device being uncomfortable. These factors are raised quite considerably throughout the literature and within this study; it is therefore a recommendation that these issues need to be addressed. More education about why customised MGs should be worn is required to improve usage and compliance as well as improving manufacturing techniques to reduce the highlighted issues.

Orofacial traumas account for a third from all injuries sustained during contact sports. Wearing a mouthguard (MG) could reduce the risk of such injuries. Yet, there is an underlying belief amongst many players that the device could cause impedances with comfort, breathing and speech. This might be due to the type of MG or athletes knowledge of which one is best. For example, custom-made MGs were found to provide superior protection and fit compared to ‘boil-and-bite’ or stock MGs. The aim of the present study was to examine the current attitudes and awareness of MGs in the UK via online questionnaire. An online survey was distributed to 308 participants via email and social media, which consisted of 18 questions, addressing the usage of mouth protection in different levels of sport (e.g. national/international), rate of dental injuries and common issues previously raised within the literature. The results showed that 23% of the 308 respondents competed at national level, 15% at international and 10% were part of a club. The majority were rugby union players (57%) and the rest participated in sports such as ice hockey (17%), martial arts (5%) and other team sports. It was found that 40% currently wore a customised MG, however many of them had experienced problems with discomfort and breathing. Almost half of the respondents highlighted that they had stopped wearing a MG due to the device being uncomfortable. These factors are raised quite considerably throughout the literature and within this study; it is therefore a recommendation that these issues need to be addressed. More education about why customised MGs should be worn is required to improve usage and compliance as well as improving manufacturing techniques to reduce the highlighted issues.