Effect of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) closed cell foam on transmitted forces in mouthguard material
B. Westerman, P. M. Stringfellow, J. A. Eccleston, D. J. Harbrow
Abstract
Open-access reader
B. Westerman, P. M. Stringfellow, J. A. Eccleston, D. J. Harbrow
Abstract
Open-access reader
OBJECTIVES: To compare transmitted forces through ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguard material and the same EVA material with gas inclusions in the form of a closed cell foam. METHOD: EVA mouthguard materials with and without foam gas inclusions and 4 mm thick were impacted with a constant force from an impact pendulum. Various porosity levels in the foam materials were produced by 1%, 5%, and 10% by weight foaming agent. The forces transmitted through the EVA after energy absorption by the test materials were measured with a force sensor and compared. RESULTS: Only minor non-significant differences in transmitted forces through the EVA with and without foam were shown. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of gas in the form of a closed cell foam in 4 mm thick EVA mouthguard materials did not improve the impact performance of the EVA mouthguard material.
OpenAlex reports 38 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
OBJECTIVES: To compare transmitted forces through ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) mouthguard material and the same EVA material with gas inclusions in the form of a closed cell foam. METHOD: EVA mouthguard materials with and without foam gas inclusions and 4 mm thick were impacted with a constant force from an impact pendulum. Various porosity levels in the foam materials were produced by 1%, 5%, and 10% by weight foaming agent. The forces transmitted through the EVA after energy absorption by the test materials were measured with a force sensor and compared. RESULTS: Only minor non-significant differences in transmitted forces through the EVA with and without foam were shown. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of gas in the form of a closed cell foam in 4 mm thick EVA mouthguard materials did not improve the impact performance of the EVA mouthguard material.
Key concepts: Mouthguard, Ethylene-vinyl acetate, Materials science, Composite material, Metal foam, Porosity, Copolymer, Polymer