Team Mouthguard Program Buyer's Guide: How to Evaluate a Bulk Concussion-Protection Purchase
Last updated
A team mouthguard program is a multi-athlete procurement decision, not a stack of individual retail purchases — and the evaluation framework is different. The athletic-trainer-grade decision turns on nine criteria: mechanism family, peer-reviewed efficacy data with cited counter-evidence, governing-body rule fit across the sports on your roster, sport-versatile compatibility, athlete-acceptance and compliance plan, per-athlete cost-of-ownership over a three-year horizon, replacement cycle and warranty structure, fitting workflow and institutional logistics, and integration into a CISG Amsterdam 2022-aligned1 return-to-play protocol. The strongest peer-reviewed signal for concussion-incidence reduction in collision sports is mouthguard-based — a 26% reduction across 192 studies in the 2023 BJSM meta-analysis2 — and the strongest sub-signal is custom pressure-laminated or custom mandibular designs34. This guide walks athletic directors, head coaches, and head athletic trainers through every criterion.
A team program is a different procurement decision than a parent's retail purchase — here's what changes
Buying mouthguards for an entire roster is a different decision than buying one mouthguard for one athlete, and most retail-grade evaluation frameworks miss the difference. At the individual level, the binding constraints are usually fit, comfort, and price. At the program level, the binding constraints are roster heterogeneity (sport-by-sport rule fit, age-grade compatibility, orthodontic accommodation), throughput (impressions and fitting must clear in a defined window before the season), compliance retention across the season (an unworn mouthguard is a $0 investment in protection), replacement-cycle predictability (a per-athlete annual budget rather than ad-hoc reorders), and standard-of-care defensibility (the program needs to read as CISG-aligned1 when an athletic trainer audits or a litigation discovery process reviews it).
A retail mouthguard purchase that does not anticipate these constraints will fail the program in predictable ways. The most common failure mode is OTC mouthguard degradation — Winters & DeMont 2014 measured average OTC mouthguard thickness dropping from 1.65 mm at season start to 1.34 mm at time of concussion injury4, meaning the protective material was effectively gone before the season ended. A program that buys OTC mouthguards as a "compliance gesture" is reordering twice a season at minimum, paying for compliance audits that find a third of the team wearing degraded mouthguards by week 6, and getting concussion-incidence data that looks like the OTC arm of the Winters trial (8.3%) rather than the custom arm (3.6%)4. The reorder cost, the audit overhead, and the incidence delta are the three places where retail logic and program logic diverge.
This guide is built around what makes program-level procurement different: the criteria below are not the same as the criteria a parent uses on a single mouthguard purchase, and the vendor questions are not the same as the ones a parent asks at a sporting-goods counter.
Nine evaluation criteria for team mouthguard programs
Use this checklist as the basis of a vendor RFP. Each criterion is meant to be answerable in writing — if a vendor cannot answer it, that is a finding for your procurement file.
Mechanism family stated explicitly
The vendor identifies which of the four concussion-protection mechanism families the product belongs to (external padding, jugular compression, custom mandibular-stabilization, impact measurement) and what it does and does not address. A retail dental-protection mouthguard belongs to a different family than a custom mandibular-stabilization appliance, and the protective evidence tracks mechanism family. Vague "concussion protection" language without a stated mechanism is a regulatory red flag — the FTC has sent warning letters to mouthguard manufacturers for unsupported concussion-prevention claims, and any vendor still using that language in 2026 has not adapted.
Peer-reviewed efficacy data, with counter-evidence cited
A vendor should produce a list of peer-reviewed publications supporting the mechanism, with PMID or DOI links and identification of which are independent vs vendor-affiliated. Population-level meta-analyses sit at the top of the evidence pyramid; controlled trials sit underneath; mechanism studies sit underneath those. Marketing claims sit outside the pyramid. The 2023 BJSM meta-analysis of 192 studies is the strongest single source for the mouthguard category2; the 2014 Winters RCT is the strongest single trial on custom vs OTC outcomes4; the counter-evidence sources — Daneshvar 20115, Benson 20096 — should be in the vendor's framing alongside the supportive ones. Vendors who do not cite counter-evidence are taking on regulatory and credibility risk you will inherit.
Governing-body rule fit across every sport on your roster
A program-level mouthguard buys protection for a multi-sport athletic department, and the binding compliance constraint is rule fit across every sport. NFHS football, ice hockey, lacrosse, field hockey, and wrestling (with orthodontic appliances) all require a mouthguard7; NCAA football mandates a visible-color upper-teeth-covering mouthguard with the addition that clear and white are prohibited8; USA Hockey requires an internal mouthpiece at 12U through junior levels9. The custom mandibular-stabilization mechanism family that NeuroGuard+ belongs to is a lower-jaw appliance — in upper-teeth-mandated sports (NCAA football, NFHS football, USA Hockey, US Lacrosse), athletes should verify rule fit with the head athletic trainer; in sports without an upper/lower specification (USA Boxing classifications, World Rugby, most non-rule-mandated sports), no rule conflict exists. The deeper sport-by-sport rule walk is on the mouthguard rules by sport page; brain-vs-teeth context is on the concussion protection buyer's guide.
Sport-versatile compatibility for multi-sport athletes
A high-school or collegiate athletic department typically has 30–60% of its athletes participating in two or more sports across the academic year. A program that buys sport-specific mouthguards pays a per-athlete tax that scales with multi-sport participation rate. A custom mandibular appliance like NeuroGuard+ is a single device that complies across helmet and non-helmet sports — football, hockey, lacrosse, wrestling, basketball, soccer, boxing, rugby — and the underlying mechanism (mandibular position, airway dynamics, neuromuscular stabilization) does not change between sports. Sport-versatile compatibility is one of the larger hidden-cost drivers in multi-sport programs and one of the criteria the largest athletic directors weight most heavily.
Athlete-acceptance and compliance plan
A 26% incidence reduction at 100% compliance is a 13% reduction at 50% compliance. Most equipment programs see 50–70% compliance in practice — the silent failure mode of every protection program is athletes pulling the mouthguard out for breathing, speaking, or comfort reasons. A vendor should document fit retention, breathing/speech impact, and athlete-resistance mitigations. Custom appliances generally win on compliance because they are fit-retentive and breathable; the deep dive on this is the mouthguard player compliance page. A program-level vendor should produce compliance data — not just product comfort claims — and a coach-and-AT playbook for compliance improvement.
Per-athlete cost-of-ownership over a three-year horizon
Initial cost is the smaller part of the math. Replacement frequency, fitting workflow cost, warranty terms, and team-quantity pricing structure determine the three-year program budget. Custom mandibular appliances typically run on annual or 18-month replacement cycles. OTC mouthguards degrade within a single season — Winters & DeMont measured average OTC thickness falling from 1.65 mm at season start to 1.34 mm at time of injury4 — which forces mid-season reorders and produces the hidden cost overhang in retail-grade programs. The three-year TCO comparison is in the table below; the key insight is that the per-athlete delta narrows dramatically once replacement frequency is included.
Replacement cycle and warranty structure stated explicitly
Custom appliances should have an annual replacement cycle, a defined warranty for fit and material defects, and a stated re-fit policy for athlete growth (particularly important for 12U through 18U programs where mandibular and dental development is ongoing). A vendor that does not document the replacement cycle is leaving the program to discover it the hard way. Annual replacement is the standard for custom mandibular appliances in active competitive use; outside that cycle, a vendor should justify the longer interval against the wear-pattern data.
Fitting workflow and institutional logistics
Bulk fitting is the operationally heaviest part of the program. The vendor should document the impressions workflow (on-site visit, mail-in dental impression kit, or partnership with a local dental provider), turnaround time from impression to delivery, fitting verification protocol, and roster-management interface for adds and replacements during the season. A vendor that cannot run on-site or mail-in impressions for a 50–200-athlete roster is not yet a team-grade program. The detailed workflow is in the section below; key institutional question is whether the program fits inside a pre-season window of approximately four to six weeks.
Integration with a CISG Amsterdam 2022 return-to-play protocol
Equipment is one layer of a CISG-aligned1 concussion-management program. The vendor should describe how the product fits the standard-of-care framework that NCAA, NFHS, USA Hockey, US Lacrosse, NFL, and equivalent international bodies adopt. A program that has good equipment and an out-of-date return-to-play protocol is not a concussion-prevention program; a program that has a CISG-aligned protocol but unevaluated equipment is incomplete. Both layers belong in the program manual and the parent-communication packet.
Vendor scorecard for team mouthguard programs
This scorecard evaluates evidence-and-program transparency, not protective effect. Head-to-head trials at the program level do not exist; what exists is the published efficacy data, the regulatory status, the stated workflow, and the cited counter-evidence. Those are what a procurement evaluation should rank.
| Criterion | NeuroGuard+ Team (custom mandibular) | Custom pressure-laminated (generic dental lab) | OTC boil-and-bite (retail or sporting-goods) | Sport-specific padded headgear |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Mechanism family stated | Yes — custom mandibular-stabilization, lower-jaw appliance | Yes — custom pressure-laminated dental device | Often vague — "concussion protection" without mechanism in some retail lines | Yes — external impact-energy absorption |
| 2. Peer-reviewed efficacy + counter-evidence | Eliason 20232, Hutchison 20183, Winters 20144; counter-evidence Daneshvar 20115, Benson 20096 cited on every page that touches a concussion claim | Winters 20144 supports the pressure-laminated mechanism; counter-evidence framing varies by lab | Knapik 2019 supports orofacial reduction10; concussion-incidence data mixed-to-null per Daneshvar5; counter-evidence rarely cited | NFL Guardian Cap data prominent; HS counter-data less so |
| 3. Governing-body rule fit | Sport-versatile; verify upper-teeth-mandated sports with athletic trainer78 | Depends on lab specifications; upper-teeth-covering typically | Often upper-teeth-covering by default | Football-specific (Guardian Cap), sport-by-sport otherwise |
| 4. Sport-versatile for multi-sport athletes | Yes — single appliance across helmet and non-helmet sports | Single appliance, varies by lab | Sport-agnostic but compliance varies | Generally sport-specific |
| 5. Athlete-acceptance / compliance plan | Documented — high retention, breathability, speech preservation; program-level coach playbook available | Depends on lab; documentation varies | High initial fit, low retention due to material degradation4 | Variable — visible bulk; depends on athlete preference |
| 6. Per-athlete 3-year cost-of-ownership | Stated — annual replacement cycle with team pricing | Stated — typically annual | Low up front, high reorder frequency4 | Single-purchase, multi-season |
| 7. Replacement cycle | Annual; defined warranty + re-fit policy | Annual or 18-month | Per-season (or shorter, per degradation data)4 | Multi-season |
| 8. Fitting workflow | On-site impressions or mail-in kit; team logistics interface | Lab-by-lab — usually mail-in only | Self-fit boil-and-bite at home or team locker room | Off-the-shelf sizing |
| 9. CISG-aligned program integration | Documented equipment-layer integration with CISG-aligned protocols1 | Equipment layer; varies by lab | Equipment layer; CISG fit not generally documented | Equipment layer |
The scorecard pattern: every category has a defensible position and a real gap. A program-level RFP is meant to surface those gaps in writing, so the procurement decision-maker has a record they can defend in an audit or in a parent-communication packet. The strongest programs combine criteria across categories — typically a custom mandibular appliance for the brain-protection mechanism layer, paired with sport-specific external padding where the sport requires it, and an impact-measurement layer if budget allows.
The fitting workflow is what determines whether a team program ships on time
The procurement decision is half of a team-mouthguard program; the fitting workflow is the other half, and it is where programs that pass the procurement evaluation can still fail operationally. There are three workflow models for bulk-fit custom mouthguards, and a program should pick the one that fits the institutional logistics rather than letting the vendor pick.
Model A: On-site impressions visit. A vendor-provided clinician or trained technician visits the athletic facility, takes dental impressions for the roster in a single half-day to full-day window, and ships impressions to the lab for fabrication. Turnaround from impression to delivery is typically two to four weeks. This is the highest-throughput model and the one that fits cleanly inside a pre-season window of four to six weeks. The cost premium over mail-in is the visit fee, which scales with roster size and travel distance. Best fit: high-school athletic departments with multi-sport rosters, collegiate programs running combined fittings across teams, and youth-club programs with a regional coordinator.
Model B: Mail-in impression kit. The vendor ships a dental impression kit to each athlete, the athlete or a parent takes the impression at home (or at a partnered local dental provider), and the impression is mailed back to the lab. Turnaround is typically three to six weeks total. This model has the lowest upfront vendor cost but the highest variance in impression quality — programs that adopt mail-in workflows should plan for a 5–15% re-impression rate. Best fit: distributed rosters (club teams with athletes in multiple counties), smaller programs where on-site logistics are heavier than the per-impression mail cost, and programs with a budget constraint that rules out on-site visits.
Model C: Partnered local dental provider. The vendor partners with one or more dental practices in the program's region; athletes are scheduled into those practices for impressions, and the lab fabricates from there. Turnaround is typically two to four weeks. This model is the highest-quality on impression accuracy but has the highest scheduling overhead, especially for programs in regions where the partnered providers are not close to the school. Best fit: collegiate athletic departments with existing team-dentist relationships, and youth clubs with parent volunteers who can manage the appointment logistics.
A team-program vendor should be able to describe all three models, state which one they recommend for your roster size and geography, and produce a turnaround commitment with a service-level. The single most common failure mode in team programs is missing the pre-season window — the second week of August for fall sports, the second week of November for winter sports — and a vendor without a stated turnaround SLA is exposing the program to that failure mode.
Three-year per-athlete cost-of-ownership comparison (illustrative)
Costs vary by region, roster size, lab, and team-discount structure — the numbers below are illustrative ranges based on typical published price points, not vendor quotes. The point of the table is to show where the costs sit across the three-year horizon, not to provide a final budget. Always request a vendor quote against your specific roster size and sport mix.
| Cost Category | NeuroGuard+ Team (custom mandibular) | Custom pressure-laminated (generic) | OTC boil-and-bite (retail) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1: initial appliance | Single unit per athlete, team-discount pricing | Single unit per athlete, lab-quote pricing | $5–$30 per unit retail |
| Year 1: fitting workflow | Included or on-site visit fee | Lab-by-lab; impression mailer or local provider | Self-fit; no workflow cost |
| Year 1: replacements (in-season) | Warranty-covered material/fit defects | Lab-by-lab | Effectively required — average OTC thickness drops 1.65 → 1.34 mm at time of injury4; midseason reorders typical |
| Year 2: scheduled replacement | Annual replacement cycle, team-discount | Annual or 18-month, lab-quote | Per-season reorder + in-season reorders |
| Year 3: scheduled replacement + re-fit for growth | Annual cycle continues; re-fit covered for actively-growing athletes | Annual or 18-month | Per-season reorder + in-season reorders |
| Hidden cost: athletic-trainer audit overhead | Low — annual replacement is predictable | Low — annual or 18-month cycle | High — material degradation auditing is the program's responsibility, not the vendor's |
| Hidden cost: compliance audit | Low — high in-mouth retention | Low–moderate | High — material degradation drives compliance erosion |
| Standard-of-care defensibility (CISG-aligned)1 | High — peer-reviewed mechanism, custom-fit appliance, documented program integration | Moderate–high (depends on lab documentation) | Low — limited peer-reviewed concussion evidence for retail OTC mouthguards per Daneshvar5 |
The pattern: the up-front retail price advantage of OTC mouthguards is real but narrows quickly once replacement frequency, audit overhead, and standard-of-care defensibility enter the math. The custom-vs-OTC concussion-incidence delta from the Winters trial (3.6% vs 8.3%, p=0.0423)4 is the protective-effect side of this same math. A program-level evaluation should look at both halves — cost and protective effect — and weigh them against the size of the roster and the sport profile.
Four stakeholders, four different decision lenses
Team-program procurement involves multiple internal stakeholders, and each weights the nine criteria differently. The procurement decision goes more smoothly when each role is explicit about which criteria they own.
Athletic director / program-level buyer. Weights criteria 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 most heavily. Mechanism family and peer-reviewed evidence are the substantive case for the budget request; rule fit across the sport portfolio is the compliance constraint; three-year TCO is the actual budget; replacement-cycle predictability is what fits the procurement calendar; CISG-aligned program integration is the standard-of-care language for the program manual and the parent-communication packet. An AD evaluating multiple sports across a multi-year horizon will care more about criterion 4 (sport-versatile compatibility) than a single-sport buyer will.
Head coach. Weights criteria 3, 4, 5, and 8 most heavily. Rule fit is what keeps the team in compliance with NFHS7, NCAA8, or USA Hockey9 inspection; sport-versatile compatibility matters when athletes cross over to other sports in the off-season; athlete-acceptance and compliance is the difference between a working program and a paper program; fitting workflow is what determines whether the team has appliances by the first scrimmage. A head coach with high multi-sport overlap on their roster will weight criterion 4 even higher.
Head athletic trainer. Weights every criterion, with particular attention to 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9. The athletic trainer is the role most likely to read the underlying peer-reviewed literature and the role most likely to audit the program against CISG standards1. An AT will rank a vendor that cites counter-evidence (Daneshvar 20115) significantly higher than a vendor that does not. The compliance plan and the CISG-aligned integration are the layers an AT will own operationally.
Parents and parent-communication packet. The parent layer is a communications design problem more than a procurement decision, but it is where a program can lose the program. A parent-communication packet should explain the mechanism family in plain language, name the strongest peer-reviewed source (Eliason 20232), acknowledge the counter-evidence in FTC-defensible language ("earlier reviews concluded the evidence was insufficient — that picture has evolved with more controlled trials"), describe the fitting workflow and the timeline, and place the equipment investment inside a CISG-aligned program rather than as a standalone solution. The parent layer is where retail-grade vendor language ("prevents concussions") creates exposure for the school as well as the vendor.
A six-question RFP template for team mouthguard vendors
Send these six questions to every prospective vendor and require written answers. The questions are designed to surface the evidence layer, the workflow layer, and the program-integration layer all at once. Vendors who can answer them are running team-grade programs; vendors who cannot are running retail programs that happen to take bulk orders.
Question 1: Mechanism and evidence. "Which of the four concussion-protection mechanism families does your product belong to, and which peer-reviewed publications support the mechanism? Please include independent vs vendor-affiliated identification, and identify the counter-evidence sources you cite alongside the supportive ones."
Question 2: Governing-body rule fit. "For each of the following sports on our roster — [list sport-by-sport] — please document the governing-body rule fit (NFHS, NCAA, USA Hockey, US Lacrosse, USA Boxing, World Rugby) and any conditions or athletic-trainer verification we should run."
Question 3: Three-year per-athlete cost-of-ownership. "Please provide a per-athlete three-year cost-of-ownership figure for a roster size of [number] athletes across [sports]. Include initial fitting, annual replacement, warranty terms, re-fit policy for actively-growing athletes, and any institutional discount structure."
Question 4: Fitting workflow and turnaround SLA. "Please describe the fitting workflow you recommend for our roster size and geography (on-site visit, mail-in kit, or partnered local provider), the turnaround time from impression to delivery, and the service-level commitment we can expect for pre-season delivery."
Question 5: Athlete-acceptance and compliance. "Please provide compliance data (not product comfort claims) and a coach-and-AT playbook for compliance improvement. Specifically address breathing, speech, gagging, and fit retention as documented athlete-resistance pathways."
Question 6: CISG-aligned program integration. "Please describe how your product fits inside a CISG Amsterdam 2022-aligned concussion-management program, including return-to-play protocol integration. We require equipment-and-protocol documentation suitable for our program manual and parent-communication packet."
A vendor that returns substantive answers to all six is a team-grade vendor. A vendor that returns marketing materials, product brochures, or sales-call requests in lieu of written answers is not yet at team-grade readiness, regardless of how the retail product line looks. The written-answer requirement is the same standard the head athletic trainer will hold the program to in an audit.
Frequently asked questions
How is a team mouthguard program different from individual mouthguard purchases?
A team program is a multi-athlete procurement decision with binding constraints — roster heterogeneity, sport-by-sport rule fit, fitting workflow throughput, compliance retention across a season, replacement-cycle predictability, and CISG-aligned standard-of-care defensibility — that do not apply to a single retail purchase. The deeper individual-buyer framework is on the mouthguard buying checklist, and the category-level lens is on the concussion protection buyer's guide. This page is the program-level layer above both.
What is the strongest peer-reviewed source for team mouthguard programs?
The 2023 BJSM systematic review and meta-analysis (Eliason et al.) is the strongest single source for the broader mouthguard category. It included 192 studies and reported a 26% reduction in concussion incidence in collision sports for mouthguard wearers (IRR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64–0.89, statistically significant)2. For the custom-vs-OTC sub-question that drives most team-program decisions, the Winters & DeMont 2014 randomized trial of 412 high-school football players is the strongest single trial: 3.6% incidence in custom pressure-laminated mouthguards vs 8.3% in OTC mouthguards (p=0.0423)4. The deeper evidence map is on mouthguard concussion research.
Do custom mouthguards cost more than they save compared to OTC?
The three-year math depends on roster size, replacement frequency, and audit overhead. Custom mandibular appliances are higher per-unit cost but run on an annual replacement cycle with predictable warranty and re-fit terms. OTC mouthguards have low per-unit cost but degrade within a single season — Winters & DeMont measured average OTC mouthguard thickness dropping from 1.65 mm at season start to 1.34 mm at time of injury4 — which forces in-season reorders and shifts the cost-of-ownership delta. The protective-effect delta (3.6% vs 8.3% concussion incidence in Winters4) is the other side of the math. A program-level evaluation should consider both halves; the TCO table above shows where the costs sit across three years.
How should the program handle athletes in sports with an upper-teeth coverage rule?
Custom mandibular appliances are lower-jaw appliances. In sports with an upper-teeth coverage rule (NCAA football8, NFHS football7, USA Hockey9 at 12U through junior levels, US Lacrosse), athletes should verify rule fit with the head athletic trainer. The rule-by-rule walk-through is on mouthguard rules by sport. The brain-vs-teeth context is that those rules were written to address documented dental injury and require an upper-teeth-covering mouthguard because that is what protects teeth; the mandibular-stabilization mechanism family addresses a different impact-force pathway. The honest framing — and the one a program manual should adopt — is that rule-compliant ≠ concussion-protective, that mechanism family is what the protective evidence tracks, and that athletes in upper-teeth-mandated sports should verify with their athletic trainer.
What fitting workflow is right for a multi-sport athletic department?
For most multi-sport high school and collegiate departments, the on-site impressions visit (Model A in the workflow section above) is the highest-throughput option and the one that fits cleanly inside a pre-season window. Mail-in impression kits (Model B) work well for distributed rosters or smaller programs where on-site logistics are heavier than the per-impression mail cost. Partnered local dental providers (Model C) work well for collegiate departments with existing team-dentist relationships. A vendor should be able to describe all three and recommend the one that fits your roster size and geography.
How does this program integrate with CISG Amsterdam 2022 return-to-play protocols?
The CISG Amsterdam 2022 consensus statement is the standard-of-care framework that NCAA, NFHS, USA Hockey, US Lacrosse, NFL, and equivalent international bodies adopt for concussion management1. Equipment recommendations sit inside that consensus, not on top of it — the equipment layer is a protective measure that reduces concussion incidence, and the return-to-play protocol is the post-injury management layer that handles graduated return after a concussion does occur. A program manual should document both layers. The NeuroGuard+ team program is designed around CISG-aligned integration: peer-reviewed mechanism for the equipment layer, governing-body rule fit for the compliance layer, fitting workflow for the operational layer, and standard-of-care documentation for the program-manual layer.
What does a team program look like at NeuroGuard+?
NeuroGuard+ Team Ordering is a custom mandibular-stabilization program built around the criteria above. It includes on-site or mail-in impressions, annual replacement cycle, team-discount pricing, a coach-and-AT compliance playbook, governing-body rule documentation, and CISG-aligned program integration. The mechanism — custom lower-jaw appliance, mandibular physiologic rest position — is the family with the strongest direct peer-reviewed signal in the mouthguard literature34. We cite the counter-evidence (Daneshvar 20115, Benson 20096) on every page that touches a concussion claim, and we use FTC-defensible language throughout. The deeper case is on how mouthguards reduce concussion risk; the cost-of-inaction math for program-level buyers is on the cost of concussions in youth sports.
References
- 1. Patricios JS, Schneider KJ, Dvorak J, et al. Consensus statement on concussion in sport: the 6th International Conference on Concussion in Sport — Amsterdam, October 2022. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;57(11):695-711. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2023-106898
- 2. Eliason PH, Galarneau JM, Kolstad AT, et al. Prevention strategies and modifiable risk factors for sport-related concussions and head impacts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;57(12):749-761. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2022-106656
- 3. Hutchison DD, Madura C, Hutchison MC. Impact of an improved mandibular rest position via custom mouth guard on the incidence of concussions in athletes. Michigan State University College of Human Medicine; Helen DeVos Children's Hospital; 2018. Note: corresponding author Dr. Michael Hutchison invented the studied appliance. manuscript PDF
- 4. Winters JE Sr, DeMont R. Role of mouthguards in reducing mild traumatic brain injury/concussion incidence in high school football athletes. General Dentistry. 2014;62(3):34-38.
- 5. Daneshvar DH, Baugh CM, Nowinski CJ, McKee AC, Stern RA, Cantu RC. Helmets and Mouth Guards: The Role of Personal Equipment in Preventing Sport-Related Concussions. Clinics in Sports Medicine. 2011;30(1):145-163. doi:10.1016/j.csm.2010.09.006
- 6. Benson BW, Hamilton GM, Meeuwisse WH, McCrory P, Dvorak J. Is protective equipment useful in preventing concussion? A systematic review of the literature. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2009;43(Suppl 1):i56-i67. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.058271
- 7. National Federation of State High School Associations. Sport Rule Books (Football, Ice Hockey, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, Wrestling). Annual editions. nfhs.org
- 8. NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel. Sport Rule Books (Football, Ice Hockey, Lacrosse, Field Hockey). Annual editions. ncaapublications.com
- 9. USA Hockey. 2025-2027 Official Playing Rules. usahockey.com
- 10. Knapik JJ, Hoedebecke BL, Mitchener TA, Lee RC. Effectiveness of Mouthguards for the Prevention of Orofacial Injuries and Concussions in Sports: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. 2019;49(8):1217-1232. doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01121-w
