Comparative study of postural sway stability with two different mouthguards in athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athletes wear mouthguards for their protective value against trauma. Mandibular position has been linked to postural changes and improved athletic performance. This randomized double-blind comparative study aimed to evaluate the postural changes induced by two different mouthguards in athletes. Seventy-four volunteer varsity athletes, male and female, from soccer and hockey teams of the Université de Moncton were fitted with two mouthguards; Indented Midlined Stabilizing (IMS) and Flat (F). Using MatScan® linked to BioEMG®, sway parameters and surface electromyography of postural muscles were assessed for eyes closed static erect posture for three mandibular positions: habitual occlusion and the two mouthguards. The deltoid resistance was also assessed for the three conditions. There was significant stabilization of sway (p<0.0001) (area, distance, left-right excursion and antero-posterior excursion) by the IMS mouthguard compared to the F mouthguard and habitual occlusion. Those last two did not differ with respect to sway. There was no difference in the surface electromyographic recording under all three conditions. The deltoid resistance was improved only by the IMS mouthguard. Properly designed mouthguards provided postural stabilization and increased deltoid resistance for athletes. These observed positive changes in posture could potentiate athletic performances, play a role in injury prevention and have an impact in rehabilitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".