Sports activities can increase participants’ risk of orofacial trauma. Therefore, it is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of various types of sports mouthguards. This study aims to present a narrative literature review on ergonomic mouthguards, including their indications for use, classifications, materials, manufacturing methods, and the current status of additive manufacturing in their production. Research of the existing literature was performed in the Google Scholar, MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases to identify the currently available publications on the topic of sports mouthguards from January 1951 to August 2023. The terms used were “sports mouthguard”, “mouthguards and orofacial traumas”, and “mouthguards and additive manufacturing”. A total of 920 articles were found, and 39 articles were selected and included in this review. While consensus exists regarding the significance of using sports mouthguards with optimal attributes, there is a need for standardization in the methodology for manufacturing custom-made mouthguards. These can be fashioned with conventional ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer reinforcements. Such standardization would ensure uniform stress distribution and guarantee ample protection for oral tissues, allowing for universal reproducibility among dental practitioners. Additive manufacturing stands as an innovative method for fabricating mouthguards, displaying promising benefits. However, the materials and methodologies employed in this workflow still require refinement and characterization for a safe clinical integration.

Background: Orofacial injuries are common occurrences during contact sports activities. However, there is an absence of data regarding the performance of hybrid occlusal splint mouthguards (HMG), especially during compressive loading. This study amid to evaluate the biomechanical effects of wearing a conventional custom mouthguard (MG) or the HMG on the teeth, bone, and the device itself. Methods: To evaluate the total deformation and stress concentration, a skull model was selected and duplicated to receive two different designs of mouthguard device: one model received a MG with 4-mm thickness and the other received a novel HMG with the same thickness. Both models were subdivided into finite elements. The frictionless contacts were used, and a nonlinear analysis was performed simulating the compressive loading in occlusion. Results: The results were presented in von-Mises stress maps (MPa) and total deformation (mm). A higher stress concentration in teeth was observed for the model with the conventional MG, while the HMG design displayed a promising mechanical response with lower stress magnitude. The HMG design displayed a higher magnitude of stress on its occlusal portion (7.05 MPa) than the MG design (6.19 MPa). Conclusion: The hybrid mouthguard (HMG) reduced (1) jaw displacement during chewing and (2) the generated stresses in maxillary and mandibular teeth.

Background/Aims: The study aimed to assess the surface characteristics of sports mouthguards under mechanical stresses during cleaning, either by brushing or immersion in disinfectant solutions.Material and Methods: Ethylene‐vinyl acetate samples, 4 mm thick, were randomly assigned to cleaning methods: control (C—no cleaning), brushing with water (B.W), brushing with neutral liquid soap (B.S), brushing with toothpaste (B.T), immersion in distilled water for 10 min (I.W), immersion in 2.25% sodium hypochlorite solution for 10 min (I.SH), and immersion in sodium bicarbonate solution for 5 min (I.SB). All cleaning methods were applied for 28 days. Surface roughness average (Ra) and wettability were measured at baseline for the control group (n = 9), and after cleaning for all the other groups.Results: One‐way ANOVA with Tukey tests (5% significance) indicated significant differences among groups (p < .05). The I.SB group had higher surface roughness than B.S and B.T (p < .05). B.W showed the lowest wettability, significantly lower than B.T, I.W, and I.SB (p < .05). I.SB exhibited the highest wettability, significantly different from sodium hypochlorite, neutral liquid soap, brushing with water, and control groups (p < .05). The sodium bicarbonate immersion group (I.SB) demonstrated greater statistical variation, displaying higher susceptibility to aging compared to brushing with neutral liquid soap.Conclusion: Cleaning mouthguards with a toothbrush, water, and neutral liquid soap emerged as the most promising method, causing minimal surface changes in the material.