Citation

Dunn-Lewis C, Luk HY, Comstock BA, Szivak TK, Hooper DR, Kupchak BR, Watts AM, Putney BJ, Hydren JR, Volek JS, Denegar CR, Kraemer WJ. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012; 26(4): 1085-1093.

Affiliation

Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, National Strength and Conditioning Association)

DOI

10.1519/JSC.0b013e31824b4d5b

PMID

22290521

Abstract

Although mouth guards were originally designed for injury prevention, even elite athletes are now using performance mouth guards to improve athletic success. While expensive custom models are available, the efficacy of such over-the-counter models are not well known. Some athletes remain wary of the perceived potential for detriments using a mouth guard to their performance. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine various physical performance tests when using a mouth guard including a customized over-the-counter mouth guard. Twenty-six trained men (M) (25±4 yr; 1.78±0.07 m; 83.3±11.4 kg) and 24 trained women (W) (23±3 yr; 1.65±0.08 m; 62.6±7.8 kg) volunteered for the investigation. Subjects completed a familiarization period and then balanced and randomized treatment conditions which included: 1. a customized mouth guard, Power Balance performance mouth guard (PB MG), 2. a regular over the counter boil-and-bite mouth guard (Reg MG), and 3. no mouth guard (No MG) treatment condition. At each visit, subjects completed a testing protocol that was sequenced in the following order: sit-and-reach flexibility, medial-lateral balance, visual reaction time, vertical jump, 10m sprint, bench throw, and Plyo Press Power quotient (3PQ). Heart rate and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were recorded around the 3PQ. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Expected significant sex differences existed for all power, strength and speed variables. Bench throw power (W) and force (N) were significantly higher under PB MG than either Reg MG or No MG or in both men and women. The 3PQ power and force production were higher than the other two treatments for the PB MG for men only. There were no significant differences for treatment conditions in heart rate or rating of perceived exertion following the 3PQ test. Men were better able to maintain significantly higher 3PQ power production under PB MG treatment condition compared to the other two treatment conditions. Rate of power development was significantly higher in men for the vertical jump when using the PB MG compared to other treatment condition in men only. No differences were observed in flexibility, balance, visual reaction time, or sprint time. The PB MG performance mouth guard improves performance of upper-body loaded power exercises in both men and women and lower body power exercise in men without compromising performance on any other performance parameters.

Language: en