mouthguard rule

[ChuckElias]

Unless I'm going blind, jdccpa has deleted his post where he originally wrote the following:

Originally posted by jdccpa
Protecting a great smile is only a secondary purpose of a mouthguard, preventing brain injuries is the primary reason for wearing one.

I've just now gotten around to checking the links that Dan provided and it just doesn't seem to be the case that the above comment is true.

http://www.flash.net/~dkennel/guards.htm This web site provides a list of reasons for wearing the mouthguards:

Advantages of Mouth Guards

1. They prevent the tongue, lips and cheeks from being lacerated against the sharp edges of the maxillary teeth.

2. They lessen the risk of injury to the anterior maxillary teeth by about 90%.

3. They lessen the risk of damage to the posterior teeth of either jaw following a blow delivered to the inferior aspect of the mandible which causes traumatic closure of the mandible to occur. Such an impact can cause cusp fractures and tooth infractions.

4. They lessen the risk of jaw fractures by absorbing the energy of a traumatic blow to the chin.

5. They lessen the risk of concussion occurring subsequent to an impact to the mandible from either in front or below because full posterior translation of the condyles is prevented, reducing the level of force transmitted from the condyles to the base of the skull.

6. They improve the confidence of players. Athletes concentrate their efforts on the execution of their sport.

The first four reasons listed deal with oral injuries. Reduction of risk of concussion is listed fifth here.

http://www.canadiansportstherapy.com...oncussions.htm states that

Although the primary function of mouth guard is to prevent dental injuries, a recent research study done by Notre Dame University showed a dramatic reduction of concussions once mouth guards were implemented for the football team in both practices and games.

An additional concern is that the only mouthguards that are considered truly effective have to be custom fitted at a cost of at least $85 each. This is a tremendous expense to place on every HS athlete's family, b/c I guarantee the schools aren't going to pay for them. If anything, the schools will provide the cheapest -- and thus the least effective -- option.

And finally, as I've stated before, how often do you actually see a kid get an elbow to the face? In basketball (in Massachusetts, anyway), it's almost never. The mouthguard is only useful if the contact occurs on the head or jaw. This almost never happens, even at higher and more physical levels of basketball. Is the risk of this type of injury so high that it justifies mandating high-cost protective equipment? I just don't think so.

After doing some research as jdccpa suggested, I guess I can see that the mouthguards really do provide some protection from concussion, and that really is a good thing. It just seems like over-reaching on the part of our state athletic association.