Ethylene vinyl acetate mouthguards are the most often used custom protective intraoral appliances by combat sports practitioners. However, due to the difficulties in maintaining the hygiene of such mouthguards and thinning during fabrication, resulting in difficulty in predicting final dimensions, they may not be the optimal solution. The aim of this research was to evaluate an innovative method of mouthguard formation using intraoral modeling of the mouthguard pattern, hybrid acrylic material, and the addition of ZnO nanoparticles. Seventeen mouthguards patterns and 34 custom mouthguards were evaluated: 17 hybrid and 17 nanohybrid. A total of 1122 measurements were performed: each mouthguard and pattern was measured at 22 points. Statistical analyses were performed with the use of IBM^® SPSS^® Statistics 27.0.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY USA). The mean thickness of the patterns and mouthguards at all labial areas of central incisors were between 4.65 and 4.80 mm. The thickness at the buccal surface of the first molar was between 3.71 and 4 mm, and at the occlusal surface between 3.40 and 3.56 mm in the cusp area. All measurements of hybrid and nanohybrid mouthguards were strongly and highly correlated with the measurements of the mouthguard patterns. Hybrid and nanohybrid mouthguards are an advantageous alternative to thermoformed custom appliances.

Polymeric liners are materials commonly used in prosthodontics to reshape denture surfaces contacting the soft tissues of the oral cavity. The aim of the study was to determine the impact of different cleaning methods on two polymeric materials used in prosthodontics as non-adhesive permanent liners. The material for the research consisted of samples made from Mollosil Plus (Detax, Ettlingen, Germany)—direct polysiloxan liner; and Plastitanium (Pressing Dental, San Marino, Republic of San Marino)—an injection-molded liner. A total of 198 samples were made, 99 of each assessed material. They were exposed to different cleaning methods—a toothbrush, a toothbrush and soap, a toothbrush and toothpaste (BlendaMed, Procter&Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA), a toothpaste and denture cleaning paste (Protefix Hygiene Denture Paste, Queisser Pharma, Germany), denture cleansing tablets (Protefix Hygiene Cleaning Tablets, Queisse Pharma, Germany), and a disinfecting spray (Aftermat, Port Jefferson Station, New York City, NY, USA)—for 1 min, 5 min, 10 min, and 15 min. The image acquisition was performed with scanning electron microscopy and samples were analyzed for the homogeneity of their surfaces—the presence of holes, grooves, precipitate, and small and large separating pieces of the material marking departures from this homogeneity. For each type of damage, one point was given. Continuous data from two groups were compared with Mann–Whitney U testing. Due to a small sample size and distribution of variables other than normal, to compare more than two groups, Kruskal–Wallis testing with post hoc analysis (Dunn test with Bonferroni correction) was used. Categorical data were compared with the chi-square test and the Fisher’s exact test. The Mollosil Plus material should be decontaminated with the use of a toothbrush or toothbrush with soap, while Plastitanium material should be disinfected. Plastitanium samples are more susceptible to damage during the decontamination procedures than Mollosil Plus.

Background/Objectives: Mixed martial arts (MMA) is a popular combat sport combining techniques from various martial arts. The most common injuries in MMA are head, wrist, and hand trauma. However, there is limited research on injuries specifically related to submission techniques prevalent in this discipline. The use of submission techniques, particularly rear-naked chokes and arm locks, may potentially lead to serious injuries. Methods: Submission techniques from 2488 fights from Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) were analyzed. Fights from all numbered events between 2000 and 2021 were analyzed, focusing on techniques that lead to fight termination, such as chokes and armbars. Official fight statistics, with additional video verification, were used. The results were statistically analyzed with comparisons between weight categories and sex. Results: Submissions end 18.7% of all MMA fights. The most common submission technique was rear-naked choke, accounting for 68.6% of all submissions. The arm and hand concentrated submission techniques, including the armbar, accounted for 27.1% of all submissions. Female fights were, on average, one and a half minutes longer than male bouts and had significantly fewer submission attempts. Conclusions: MMA fights frequently end by submission, and many submissions involve techniques that put considerable stress on the joints and cervical region. Fighters and referees need clear protocols to swiftly recognize when a submission is causing excessive risk.

Mouthguards are recommended for all sports that may cause injuries to the head and oral cavity. Custom mouthguards, made conventionally in the thermoforming process from ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), face challenges with thinning at the incisor area during the process. In contrast, additive manufacturing (AM) processes enable the precise reproduction of the dimensions specified in a computer-aided design (CAD) model. The potential use of filament extrusion materials in the fabrication of custom mouthguards has not yet been explored in comparative studies. Our research aimed to compare five commercially available filaments for the material extrusion (MEX) also known as fused deposition modelling (FDM) of custom mouthguards using a desktop 3D printer. Samples made using Copper 3D PLActive, Spectrum Medical ABS, Braskem Bio EVA, DSM Arnitel ID 2045, and NinjaFlex were compared to EVA Erkoflex, which served as a control sample. The samples underwent tests for ultimate tensile strength (UTS), split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) performance, drop-ball impact, abrasion resistance, absorption, and solubility. The results showed that Copper 3D PLActive and Spectrum Medical ABS had the highest tensile strength. DSM Arnitel ID 2045 had the highest dynamic property performance, measured with the SHPB and drop-ball tests. On the other hand, NinjaFlex exhibited the lowest abrasion resistance and the highest absorption and solubility. DSM Arnitel ID 2045’s absorption and solubility levels were comparable to those of EVA, but had significantly lower abrasion resistance. Ultimately, DSM Arnitel ID 2045 is recommended as the best filament for 3D-printing mouthguards. The properties of this biocompatible material ensure high-impact energy absorption while maintaining low fluid sorption and solubility, supporting its safe intra-oral application for mouthguard fabrication. However, its low abrasion resistance indicated that mouthguards made from this material may need to be replaced more frequently.

Introduction: Ethylene-vinyl-acetate (EVA) custom-made mouthguards – the most common type – have one significant drawback – during fabrication the material is stretched and thinned. Many authors describe possible solutions to this side effect. However, other materials are currently...