Effectiveness and safety of a sports mouthguard depend on its thickness and material, and the thermoforming process affects these. The purpose of this study was to clarify the effects of differences in molding mechani...Effectiveness and safety of a sports mouthguard depend on its thickness and material, and the thermoforming process affects these. The purpose of this study was to clarify the effects of differences in molding mechanisms on the lower molding temperature limit and molding time in dental thermoforming. Ethylene vinyl acetate resin mouthguard sheet and two thermoforming machines;vacuum blower molding machine and vacuum ejector/pressure molding machine were used. The molding pressures for suction molding were −0.018 MPa for vacuum blower molding and −0.090 MPa for vacuum ejector molding, and for pressure molding was set to 0.090 MPa or 0.450 MPa. Based on the manufacturer’s standard molding temperature of 95˚C, the molding temperature was lowered in 2.5˚C increments to determine the lower molding temperature limit at which no molding defects occurred. In order to investigate the difference in molding time depending on the molding mechanism, the duration of molding pressure was adjusted in each molding machine, and the molding time required to obtain a sample without molding defects was measured. The molding time of each molding machine were compared using one-way analysis of variance. The lower molding temperature limit was 90.0˚C for the vacuum blower machine, 77.5˚C for the vacuum ejector machine, 77.5˚C for the pressure molding machine at 0.090 MPa, and 67.5˚C for the pressure molding machine at 0.45 MPa. The lower molding temperature limit was higher for lower absolute values of molding pressure. The molding time was shorter for pressure molding than for suction molding. Significant differences were observed between all conditions except between the pressure molding machine at 0.090 MPa and 0.45 MPa (P < 0.01). A comparison of the differences in lower molding temperature limit and molding time due to molding mechanisms in dental thermoforming revealed that the lower molding temperature limit depends on the molding pressure and that the molding time is longer for suction molding than for pressure moldi展开更多
Many molding techniques have been researched to ensure the thickness of custom mouthguards. The aim of this study was to clarify the effect on the thickness of a laminated mouthguard of a molding technique in which th...Many molding techniques have been researched to ensure the thickness of custom mouthguards. The aim of this study was to clarify the effect on the thickness of a laminated mouthguard of a molding technique in which the model position is moved forward just before molding. Mouthguards were molded using a 3.0-mm-thick ethylene vinyl acetate mouthguard sheet and a pressure molding machine. The molding method was the normal molding method (condition C) and the molding technique (condition MP) in which the model position was moved 20 mm forward just before molding. Regarding the molding of the first layer (F) and the second layer (S), the following four molding methods based on the combination of conditions C and MP were compared;FC-SC, FC-SMP, FMP-SC, and FMP-SMP. Differences in mouthguard thickness due to molding conditions for the first and second layers were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Significant differences were observed among all molding conditions on the labial surface, and the thicknesses were in the order FC-SC < FC-SMP < FMP-SC < FMP-SMP. FMP-SMP was 4.67 mm thick, which was 1.39 mm thicker than FC-SC. FC-SC was the thinnest at the cusp, and a significant difference was observed between other molding conditions. On the buccal side, significant differences were observed between all conditions except FC-SMP and FMP-SC, and the thicknesses were in the order FC-SC < FC-SMP, FMP-SC < FMP-SMP. The results of this study suggested that the labial and buccal sides of laminated mouthguards could be made 1.4 and 1.2 times thicker when a molding technique that moves the model position just before formation was used for the first and second layers. The reduction in thickness was suppressed by approximately 23.2% and approximately 10.7% on the labial and buccal sides, respectively, compared with the normal molding method.展开更多
文摘Effectiveness and safety of a sports mouthguard depend on its thickness and material, and the thermoforming process affects these. The purpose of this study was to clarify the effects of differences in molding mechanisms on the lower molding temperature limit and molding time in dental thermoforming. Ethylene vinyl acetate resin mouthguard sheet and two thermoforming machines;vacuum blower molding machine and vacuum ejector/pressure molding machine were used. The molding pressures for suction molding were −0.018 MPa for vacuum blower molding and −0.090 MPa for vacuum ejector molding, and for pressure molding was set to 0.090 MPa or 0.450 MPa. Based on the manufacturer’s standard molding temperature of 95˚C, the molding temperature was lowered in 2.5˚C increments to determine the lower molding temperature limit at which no molding defects occurred. In order to investigate the difference in molding time depending on the molding mechanism, the duration of molding pressure was adjusted in each molding machine, and the molding time required to obtain a sample without molding defects was measured. The molding time of each molding machine were compared using one-way analysis of variance. The lower molding temperature limit was 90.0˚C for the vacuum blower machine, 77.5˚C for the vacuum ejector machine, 77.5˚C for the pressure molding machine at 0.090 MPa, and 67.5˚C for the pressure molding machine at 0.45 MPa. The lower molding temperature limit was higher for lower absolute values of molding pressure. The molding time was shorter for pressure molding than for suction molding. Significant differences were observed between all conditions except between the pressure molding machine at 0.090 MPa and 0.45 MPa (P < 0.01). A comparison of the differences in lower molding temperature limit and molding time due to molding mechanisms in dental thermoforming revealed that the lower molding temperature limit depends on the molding pressure and that the molding time is longer for suction molding than for pressure moldi
文摘Many molding techniques have been researched to ensure the thickness of custom mouthguards. The aim of this study was to clarify the effect on the thickness of a laminated mouthguard of a molding technique in which the model position is moved forward just before molding. Mouthguards were molded using a 3.0-mm-thick ethylene vinyl acetate mouthguard sheet and a pressure molding machine. The molding method was the normal molding method (condition C) and the molding technique (condition MP) in which the model position was moved 20 mm forward just before molding. Regarding the molding of the first layer (F) and the second layer (S), the following four molding methods based on the combination of conditions C and MP were compared;FC-SC, FC-SMP, FMP-SC, and FMP-SMP. Differences in mouthguard thickness due to molding conditions for the first and second layers were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. Significant differences were observed among all molding conditions on the labial surface, and the thicknesses were in the order FC-SC < FC-SMP < FMP-SC < FMP-SMP. FMP-SMP was 4.67 mm thick, which was 1.39 mm thicker than FC-SC. FC-SC was the thinnest at the cusp, and a significant difference was observed between other molding conditions. On the buccal side, significant differences were observed between all conditions except FC-SMP and FMP-SC, and the thicknesses were in the order FC-SC < FC-SMP, FMP-SC < FMP-SMP. The results of this study suggested that the labial and buccal sides of laminated mouthguards could be made 1.4 and 1.2 times thicker when a molding technique that moves the model position just before formation was used for the first and second layers. The reduction in thickness was suppressed by approximately 23.2% and approximately 10.7% on the labial and buccal sides, respectively, compared with the normal molding method.
