Search

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]

Background: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) has proven to have a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of bone infections. In patients with delayed union it may be clinically important to differentiate between aseptic and septic delayed union. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and to assess the optimal diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET/CT in differentiating between aseptic and septic delayed union in the lower extremity.Methods: This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent FDG-PET/CT scanning for suspicion of septic delayed union of the lower extremity. Diagnosis of aseptic delayed union or septic delayed union was made based on surgical deep cultures following PET/CT scanning and information on clinical follow-up. FDG-uptake values were measured at the fractured site by use of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET/CT were calculated at various SUVmax cut-off points.Results: A total of 30 patients were included; 13 patients with aseptic delayed unions and 17 patients with septic delayed unions. Mean SUVmax in aseptic delayed union patients was 3.23 (SD ± 1.21). Mean SUVmax in septic delayed union patients was 4.77 (SD ± 1.87). A cut-off SUVmax set at 4.0 showed sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET/CT were 65, 77 and 70% to differentiate between aseptic and septic delayed union, respectively.Conclusion: Using a semi-quantitative measure (SUVmax) for interpretation of FDG-PET/CT imaging seems to be a promising tool for the discrimination between aseptic and septic delayed union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mouthguards are used to prevent players from orodental injuries in field hockey. However, such injuries are still a common problem. This study describes the prevalence of orodental injury and the related mouthguard usage in field hockey., Material and Methods: A 19-item questionnaire was distributed in the Dutch field hockey competition and at the international Master World Cup. In total, 1213 questionnaires were collected. Standard descriptive statistics were used to describe the samples. Associations between data were determined using the Pearson Chi-Square test., Results: The prevalence of orodental injuries during the career of hockey players was 20% in Dutch players, and 29% in international players. Mouthguard usage among Dutch players was 95%, and among international players 88%. There was no significant association between wearing a mouthguard or not with respect to whether or not treatment was requested as a result of an orodental injury (Dutch p =0.43; international p =0.22)., Conclusions: This study showed that the prevalence of orodental injuries in field hockey are high, while the majority of the players use a 'protective' mouthguard. These results imply that the current mouthguards may not provide enough protection against the forces used in field hockey. Key words: Mouthguard, prevention, sports, dental injury., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None., (Copyright: © 2024 Medicina Oral S.L.)