The Experts below are selected from a list of 60 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Welbury R - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Club Policies for Mouth Protectors and Dental Emergency Cover in Scottish Rugby Union (SRU) Affiliated Junior Teams
'Royal College of Surgeons of England', 2015Co-Authors: Broad M, Welbury RAbstract:Aims: To determine whether club policies exist for junior players concerning the wearing of Mouth Protectors during training and playing, and whether dental emergency cover is present on both training and match days at Scottish Rugby Union (SRU) affiliated junior clubs. Method: A self-reporting structured questionnaire, sent to all SRU affiliated clubs with junior playing members. Results: Response rate was 77% (117 out of 151 clubs) showing a wide variation in policies and implementation. Exclusion was reported from training in 11% (13 out of 151) and from playing on match days in 17% (20 out of 151) of clubs if a Mouth Protector was not worn. The majority of clubs advocated that shop-bought Protectors were satisfactory. First aiders were present at training at 86% (130 out of 151) and on match days at 95% (143 out of 151) of clubs. Fewer than 1% had a dentist and only 3% a doctor present at training. On match days fewer than 2% had a dentist and fewer than 20% a doctor present. Conclusion: There is a wide variation in club policies and guidelines thus allowing parents, players and club staff considerable latitude in interpretation. A significant number of youngsters will be at increased risk of dental injury. First aiders are present in a significant number of clubs during training and playing
Richard Welbury - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
CLUB POLICIES FOR Mouth ProtectorS AND DENTAL EMERGENCY COVER IN SCOTTISH RUGBY UNION (SRU) AFFILIATED JUNIOR TEAMS.
Primary dental journal, 2015Co-Authors: Mike Broad, Richard WelburyAbstract:AIMS: To determine whether club policies exist for junior players concerning the wearing of Mouth Protectors during training and playing, and whether dental emergency cover is present on both training and match days at Scottish Rugby Union (SRU) affiliated junior clubs. METHOD: A self-reporting structured questionnaire, sent to all SRU affiliated clubs with junior playing members. RESULTS: Response rate was 77% (117 out of 151 clubs) showing a wide variation in policies and implementation. Exclusion was reported from training in 11% (13 out of 151) and from playing on match days in 17% (20 out of 151) of clubs if a Mouth Protector was not worn. The majority of clubs advocated that shop-bought Protectors were satisfactory. First aiders were present at training at 86% (130 out of 151) and on match days at 95% (143 out of 151) of clubs. Fewer than 1% had a dentist and only 3% a doctor present at training. On match days fewer than 2% had a dentist and fewer than 20% a doctor present. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variation in club policies and guidelines thus allowing parents, players and club staff considerable latitude in interpretation. A significant number of youngsters will be at increased risk of dental injury. First aiders are present in a significant number of clubs during training and playing. Language: en
Broad M - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Club Policies for Mouth Protectors and Dental Emergency Cover in Scottish Rugby Union (SRU) Affiliated Junior Teams
'Royal College of Surgeons of England', 2015Co-Authors: Broad M, Welbury RAbstract:Aims: To determine whether club policies exist for junior players concerning the wearing of Mouth Protectors during training and playing, and whether dental emergency cover is present on both training and match days at Scottish Rugby Union (SRU) affiliated junior clubs. Method: A self-reporting structured questionnaire, sent to all SRU affiliated clubs with junior playing members. Results: Response rate was 77% (117 out of 151 clubs) showing a wide variation in policies and implementation. Exclusion was reported from training in 11% (13 out of 151) and from playing on match days in 17% (20 out of 151) of clubs if a Mouth Protector was not worn. The majority of clubs advocated that shop-bought Protectors were satisfactory. First aiders were present at training at 86% (130 out of 151) and on match days at 95% (143 out of 151) of clubs. Fewer than 1% had a dentist and only 3% a doctor present at training. On match days fewer than 2% had a dentist and fewer than 20% a doctor present. Conclusion: There is a wide variation in club policies and guidelines thus allowing parents, players and club staff considerable latitude in interpretation. A significant number of youngsters will be at increased risk of dental injury. First aiders are present in a significant number of clubs during training and playing
Mike Broad - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
CLUB POLICIES FOR Mouth ProtectorS AND DENTAL EMERGENCY COVER IN SCOTTISH RUGBY UNION (SRU) AFFILIATED JUNIOR TEAMS.
Primary dental journal, 2015Co-Authors: Mike Broad, Richard WelburyAbstract:AIMS: To determine whether club policies exist for junior players concerning the wearing of Mouth Protectors during training and playing, and whether dental emergency cover is present on both training and match days at Scottish Rugby Union (SRU) affiliated junior clubs. METHOD: A self-reporting structured questionnaire, sent to all SRU affiliated clubs with junior playing members. RESULTS: Response rate was 77% (117 out of 151 clubs) showing a wide variation in policies and implementation. Exclusion was reported from training in 11% (13 out of 151) and from playing on match days in 17% (20 out of 151) of clubs if a Mouth Protector was not worn. The majority of clubs advocated that shop-bought Protectors were satisfactory. First aiders were present at training at 86% (130 out of 151) and on match days at 95% (143 out of 151) of clubs. Fewer than 1% had a dentist and only 3% a doctor present at training. On match days fewer than 2% had a dentist and fewer than 20% a doctor present. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variation in club policies and guidelines thus allowing parents, players and club staff considerable latitude in interpretation. A significant number of youngsters will be at increased risk of dental injury. First aiders are present in a significant number of clubs during training and playing. Language: en
J Brasher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Physiological effects of wearing Mouthguards.
British journal of sports medicine, 1991Co-Authors: K T Francis, J BrasherAbstract:Mouthguards are considered by most authorities to be an essential part of equipment for players participating in body-contact sports. Mouthguards provide excellent dental protection but not all players use them, complaining of breathing difficulties and problems with speaking. Although information exists concerning dental trauma and Mouth Protector use, there are no reported data that quantify the physiological effects of wearing Mouthguards. The purpose of this study was to measure the ventilatory and gas exchange effects of wearing a Mouthguard. Ten healthy men and seven women aged 20-36 years (mean(s.d.) 27.2(5.2) years) were used as subjects. Forced expiratory air volume at 1 s (FEV1) and peak expiratory flow rates (PEF) were measured on each subject while wearing either no Mouthguard or one of three different over-the-counter Mouthguards including one maxillary (Mouthguard 1) and two different bimaxillary guards (Mouthguards 2 and 3). To determine the effects of wearing each of the Mouthguards during exercise, oxygen consumption (VO2) was measured while exercising on a cycle ergometer for 5 min at a light and heavy workload. An ANOVA of repeated measures was used to determine statistical differences. In each case, the wearing of a Mouthguard significantly (P less than 0.05) reduced FEV1 and PEF in comparison with no Mouthguard. FEV1 was reduced 8% with Mouthguard 1, and 12% and 14% with Mouthguards 2 and 3 respectively. PEF was reduced by 7, 15 and 15.8% with Mouthguards 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The wearing of the different Mouthguards did not significantly change VO2 while exercising at the lower work level whereas VO2 was significantly ( P < 0.05) reduced at the heavier workload. This surprising reduction in VO2 during heavy exercise may be due to a 'pursed-lip' type of breathing which has been shown to decrease CO2 tension, increase oxygenation and exercise tolerance. It can be concluded that although Mouthguards may be perceptably uncomfortable and restrict forced expiratory air flow, they appear to be beneficial in prolonging exercise by improving ventilation and economy.