RESUMO
BACKGROUND/AIM: Mouthguards (MTG) are used to prevent dental trauma. However, their protective effect on esthetic restorations and whether modified MTGs are beneficial is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of hard inserts and air spaces in MTGs in protecting direct resin composite veneers during impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty resin composite veneers (1.0 mm) were prepared on upper right central incisors on printed maxilla models using polyether. The effect of the MTGs was evaluated in four groups (n = 5): Con-MTG, conventional custom-fit MTGs made with two layers of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA); Air-MTG, MTGs with the insertion of 2.0 mm air space between the two layers of EVA and tooth surface; PETG-MTG, MTGs with 1.0 mm of polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG) inserted between the EVA layers; and No-MTG, comprising resin composite veneers without MTG. The printed models were fixed in a pendulum device, and the impact was performed at 30°. The strain (µS) and shock absorption (%) of the MTG were recorded using strain gauges. Failure modes and cracks were evaluated using macro photography and transillumination and analyzed using the chi-square test. Strain and shock absorption data were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Mouthguards reduced strain and enhanced shock absorption, regardless of the MTG type (p < .001). Con-MTG, Air-MTG, and PETG-MTG had shock absorption rates of 76.1%, 72.3%, and 33.4%, respectively (p < .001). The single No-MTG model had a root fracture, while all the others had superficial damage. None of the MTG models had cracks or fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Mouthguards protected the resin composite veneers. The Con-MTG and Air-MTG groups had lower strain and greater shock absorption than the PETG-MTG. Resin veneers had no cracks or damage following MTG use. However, 80% of the veneers had surface damage when no MTG was used.