Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > Articles online first > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2019 Sep 23

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

 

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2019 Sep 23

DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.19.09714-7

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Effects of boil-and-bite and custom-fit mouthguards on cardiorespiratory responses to aerobic exercise

Jeffery B. FELAND, Jeffrey HURST, Gilbert W. FELLINGHAM, Pat R. VEHRS

Department of Exercise Sciences Brigham Young University, Provo, the Netherlands


PDF


BACKGROUND: The physiological responses to exercise when wearing a mouthguard may depend on the type of mouthguard and the facemask used during exercise testing. This study compared the effects of boil-and-bite (BBMG) and custom-fit (CFMG) protective mouthguards on the metabolic, cardiovascular, and ventilatory responses to exercise when wearing a facemask that allowed mouth only or nose and mouth breathing.
METHODS: Twenty-four male college Lacrosse players (mean = 20 ± 2 years) participated in this study. Each participant performed six submaximal exercise tests while wearing one of two facemasks (mouth only breathing and nose and mouth breathing) and one of three mouthguard conditions (BBMG, CFMG, no mouthguard). Steady-state VO2, rate of perceived exertion (RPE), tidal volume (VT), respiratory rate (RR), minute ventilation (VE), and heart rate (HR) values were measured at intensities of exercise corresponding to 60% and 80% of VO2peak.
RESULTS: There were significant main effects for facemask type (mouth only breathing vs. nose and mouth breathing) for VO2, VE, VT, and RPE. There were significant main effects for mouthguard (BBMG, CFMG, and no mouthguard) for VO2, VE, RR, and HR. There were also multiple significant interactions. All of the differences in VO2, HR, VE, VT, RR, and RPE, although statistically significant, were negligible and of little practical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: The physiological responses to wearing a BBMG or CFMG are of little practical significance so they can be worn to reduce the likelihood of dental injuries without impeding metabolic, cardiovascular and ventilatory responses.


KEY WORDS: Oxygen consumption; Ventilation; Sports injuries; Mouth protectors

top of page