Attitudes of College Football Officials Regarding NCAA Mouthguard Regulations and Player Compliance

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) mandates the use of brightly colored, intraoral mouth- guards by football players to reduce the frequency and severity of craniofacial and intraoral morbidity and mortality, and to enhance the ability of officials to observe player compliance. The purpose of this 12-question mail survey was to determine the attitudes of on-Held game officials regarding current NCAA mouthguard regulations and patterns of utilization by college football players. The sample consisted of all 50 Big East Football Conference officials; a response rate of 100 percent was achieved. Only 42 percent of the officials reported observing all players in compliance, and quarterbacks were identified by others as the least compliant group (52%). The majority (88%) indicated that the 1990 rule for brightly colored mouthguards had been beneficial to them in determining player compliance, and 52 percent reported that this rule had resulted in more frequent use by these athletes. Nearly all officials (96%) indicated that they would issue a warning for noncompliance to the player or coach, rather than charging a timeout for a violation as prescribed by NCAA regulations. The majority (70%) believe current enforcement is appropriate, but expressed the opinion that coaches should be held more accountable for player compliance.     

In Vitro Wear of Nano-Composite Denture Teeth

PURPOSE: Few laboratory tests have been able to substantiate and quantify the wear resistances of polymeric denture teeth. This study evaluated the relative wear resistance of several types of denture teeth using an in vitro wear testing device. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four different types of denture teeth [nano-filled (Veracia) and micro-filled composites (SR-Orthosit, Endura, Duradent, Surpass), cross-linked acrylic (SR-Postaris, Genios-P, Creapearl, Vitapan Physiodens, Premium 8, Integral), and a conventional acrylic (Biotone)] were used. The flattened buccal surface of each denture tooth was subjected to the evaluation of Knoop hardness (n=5) and localized wear for 100,000 cycles (n=10). Wear values were determined in micrometers using a profilometer. The data for the hardness, wear depth, and worn surface areas were individually analyzed by one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Knoop hardness values (KHN) ranged from 28.2 to 29.8 for micro-filled composite, 18.9 to 21.6 for cross-linked acrylic, 22.7 for nano-composite, and 18.6 for conventional acrylic teeth. All micro-filled composite teeth were significantly harder than other teeth (p <0.0001). The wear depth values were 90.5 microm for the nano-composite, 69.8 to 93.0 microm for the micro-filled composite, 80.8 to 104.0 microm for the cross-linked acrylic, and 162.5 microm for conventional acrylic teeth. The worn surface areas were 5.1 mm2 for the nano-composite, 2.6 to 3.6 mm2 for the micro-filled composite, 4.4 to 5.7 mm2 for the cross-linked acrylic, and 10.1 mm2 for conventional acrylic teeth. The wear values of the acrylic control were significantly different from all other denture teeth (p <0.001). CONCLUSION: The nano-composite tooth was harder and more wear resistant than the acrylic teeth but not significantly different from most of the cross-linked and micro-filled composite teeth tested.     

Multiple Implants for First Molar Prosthodontics

Problems that can occur when single implants are utilized to restore first molar teeth include the frequent loosening of screws, as well as screws and/or implant breakage. These may result from torquing and rotational movements of the prosthesis during masticatory and parafunctional mandibular movements. When sufficient bone and mesio-distal restorative space is present, the placement of two implants should be considered.