Orodental injury and mouthguard usage in Dutch and international field hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Mouthguards are used to prevent players from orodental injuries in field hockey.However, such injuries are still a common problem.This study describes the prevalence of orodental injury and the related mouthguard usage in field hockey.Material and Methods: A 19-item questionnaire was distributed in the Dutch field hockey competition and at the international Master World Cup.In total, 1213 questionnaires were collected.Standard descriptive statistics were used to describe the samples.Associations between data were determined using the Pearson Chi-Square test.Results: The prevalence of orodental injuries during the career of hockey players was 20% in Dutch players, and 29% in international players.Mouthguard usage among Dutch players was 95%, and among international players 88%.There was no significant association between wearing a mouthguard or not with respect to whether or not treatment was requested as a result of an orodental injury (Dutch p=0.43; international p=0.22).Conclusions: This study showed that the prevalence of orodental injuries in field hockey are high, while the majority of the players use a 'protective' mouthguard.These results imply that the current mouthguards may not provide enough protection against the forces used in field hockey.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".