Search

Background/aim: Field hockey is frequently associated with oro-dental injuries. In such acute situations, appropriate management of the injury by coaches can contribute to a better clinical outcome and prognosis. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the knowledge of hockey coaches in the Netherlands about the emergency management of dental injuries., Material and Methods: A 25-item questionnaire about the prevalence and management of oro-dental injuries was distributed amongst hockey coaches in the Netherlands. A sub-analysis was done regarding the knowledge on the management of dental injuries by using a 5-point scoring system., Results: Two hundred and six hockey coaches participated in this survey. A small majority (53%) of the coaches knew the treatment of choice in the event of a permanent tooth injury. The median score of coaches' knowledge regarding management of oro-dental injuries was 3.0 (2.0-4.0) points. Coaches with a (para)medical training/occupation, and coaches with >10 years of experience had significantly higher scores compared with the other groups (p < .01 and p = .03, respectively)., Conclusions: The knowledge level of hockey coaches in the Netherlands about oro-dental injuries needs to be improved, as many coaches are not aware of the appropriate first aid measures., (© 2022 The Authors. Dental Traumatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background/aim: The effectiveness of mouthguards used in field hockey is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the maximum impact heights between currently used mouthguards in field hockey to prevent dental injury., Methods: Four boil-and-bite mouthguards (Dita, Shock Doctor, SISU, and Stag) and one custom-made mouthguard (Elysee) were tested for maximum impact height. A hockey ball was released in a tube from increasing heights onto plaster and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) dental models. Models were tested without mouthguard as a control. The experiment was repeated 10 times per mouthguard and for the control on each dental model. The maximum impact height for when the dental model broke was used to calculate the speed. The mouthguards and controls were compared., Results: The maximum impact heights (median [25%-75%] in meters) onto plaster dental models were as follows: control 0.23 (0.15-0.25), Dita 0.35 (0.30-0.35), Elysee 0.45 (0.34-0.50), Shock Doctor 0.68 (0.60-0.74), SISU 0.23 (0.20-0.26), and Stag 0.35 (0.35-0.46). The maximum impact height for Shock Doctor was significantly higher than all other mouthguards and the control (all P < .05). The maximum impact heights onto PMMA dental models were as follows: control 2.00 (1.30-2.50), Dita 3.80 (2.65-6.95), Elysee 3.30 (2.30-4.20), Shock Doctor 6.20 (2.80-8.10), SISU 2.60 (1.90-3.15), and Stag 3.90 (1.25-5.15). The maximum impact height for Shock Doctor was significantly higher than for SISU, Stag, and the control (all P < .05), but did not differ significantly from Dita (P = .43) and Elysee (P = .12)., Conclusion: Shock Doctor had the highest maximum impact height compared to the other mouthguards and appears to be the most effective mouthguard tested in this study., (© 2019 The Authors. Dental Traumatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background/aim: The effectiveness of mouthguards used in field hockey is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the maximum impact heights between currently used mouthguards in field hockey to prevent dental injury.Methods: Four boil-and-bite mouthguards (Dita, Shock Doctor, SISU, and Stag) and one custom-made mouthguard (Elysee) were tested for maximum impact height. A hockey ball was released in a tube from increasing heights onto plaster and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) dental models. Models were tested without mouthguard as a control. The experiment was repeated 10 times per mouthguard and for the control on each dental model. The maximum impact height for when the dental model broke was used to calculate the speed. The mouthguards and controls were compared.Results: The maximum impact heights (median [25%-75%] in meters) onto plaster dental models were as follows: control 0.23 (0.15-0.25), Dita 0.35 (0.30-0.35), Elysee 0.45 (0.34-0.50), Shock Doctor 0.68 (0.60-0.74), SISU 0.23 (0.20-0.26), and Stag 0.35 (0.35-0.46). The maximum impact height for Shock Doctor was significantly higher than all other mouthguards and the control (all P < .05). The maximum impact heights onto PMMA dental models were as follows: control 2.00 (1.30-2.50), Dita 3.80 (2.65-6.95), Elysee 3.30 (2.30-4.20), Shock Doctor 6.20 (2.80-8.10), SISU 2.60 (1.90-3.15), and Stag 3.90 (1.25-5.15). The maximum impact height for Shock Doctor was significantly higher than for SISU, Stag, and the control (all P < .05), but did not differ significantly from Dita (P = .43) and Elysee (P = .12).Conclusion: Shock Doctor had the highest maximum impact height compared to the other mouthguards and appears to be the most effective mouthguard tested in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]