Enhancing mouthguard longevity: Impact of surface treatment against aging from brushing and disinfectant exposure.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The study aimed to assess the surface characteristics of sports mouthguards under mechanical stresses during cleaning, either by brushing or immersion in disinfectant solutions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ethylene-vinyl acetate samples, 4 mm thick, were randomly assigned to cleaning methods: control (C-no cleaning), brushing with water (B.W), brushing with neutral liquid soap (B.S), brushing with toothpaste (B.T), immersion in distilled water for 10 min (I.W), immersion in 2.25% sodium hypochlorite solution for 10 min (I.SH), and immersion in sodium bicarbonate solution for 5 min (I.SB). All cleaning methods were applied for 28 days. Surface roughness average (Ra) and wettability were measured at baseline for the control group (n = 9), and after cleaning for all the other groups. RESULTS: One-way ANOVA with Tukey tests (5% significance) indicated significant differences among groups (p < .05). The I.SB group had higher surface roughness than B.S and B.T (p < .05). B.W showed the lowest wettability, significantly lower than B.T, I.W, and I.SB (p < .05). I.SB exhibited the highest wettability, significantly different from sodium hypochlorite, neutral liquid soap, brushing with water, and control groups (p < .05). The sodium bicarbonate immersion group (I.SB) demonstrated greater statistical variation, displaying higher susceptibility to aging compared to brushing with neutral liquid soap. CONCLUSION: Cleaning mouthguards with a toothbrush, water, and neutral liquid soap emerged as the most promising method, causing minimal surface changes in the material.

E-cig might cause cell damage of oral mucosa.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate cytogenetic and cytotoxic damage through the evaluation of micronuclei (MN) and metanuclear anomalies in the oral mucosa of electronic cigarette (e-cig) users. STUDY DESIGN: The patients were recruited into 4 groups: e-cig users, smokers, former smokers, and nonsmokers (control). The samples were collected by means of exfoliative cytology of the lateral region of the tongue and the floor of the mouth. The smears obtained were fixed and stained by the Feulgen method for investigation of MN and metanuclear anomalies. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed for MN frequency only between the smoker and control groups. As for metanuclear anomalies, significant differences were observed: karyolysis between: smokers and control, e-cig and control, as well as former smokers; karyorrhexis: between smoker and control; binucleation: between e-cig and former smoker, as well as control; broken eggs: between e-cig and all other groups; nuclear bud: between e-cig and former smokers, as well as control. CONCLUSIONS: E-cig and alcohol users presented genotoxicity and cytotoxicity in the oral mucosa cells. The use of e-cigs and alcohol by former smokers can cause more damage to the cells of the oral mucosa compared to those who have not used e-cigs.