Activity-Based Costing for 3D printing Mouthguard:

a test comparing FDM, SLA with thermoforming

Victor Paes Dias Gonçalves*
victor.dias.paes@gmail.com
Thayna Pereira Rangel**
thaynarangel01@gmail.com

Patrick Martins Barbosa Brito***
trickbrito@gmail.com

Lucas Moura Barbosa Eiras****
luksmbeiras@gymail.com

Neide Pena Coto+
npcoto@usp.br

Noan Tonini Simonassi++
noantoninisimonassi@gmail.com

Carlos Maurício Fontes Vieira+++
vieira@uenf.br

Felipe Perissé Lopes Duarte++
perisse@uenf.br

*PhD. candidate in Materials Engineering

at State University of Northern Rio de Janeiro Darcy Ribeiro (UENF)

**Specialized in Project Management at Polytechnic School

of the University of São Paulo (USP) and in Production Engineering

and Lean Manufacturing at Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUC-PR)

***Dentist graduated from Salgado de Oliveira University

with a postgraduate degree in Human Functional Anatomy

from Dom Alberto College

****Dentist graduated from Salgado de Oliveira University

+PhD. in Dentistry (Dental Materials) from University of São Paulo (USP)

++PhD. in Materials Science and Engineering

from Military Institute of Engineering (IME)

+++PhD. in Materials Science and Engineering

from State University of Northern Rio de Janeiro Darcy Ribeiro (UENF)

(Brazil)

Reception: 07/07/2025 - Acceptance: 05/01/2026

1st Review: 08/30/2025 - 2nd Review: 04/27/2026

Accessible document. Law N° 26.653. WCAG 2.0

Suggested reference: Gonçalves, VPD, Rangel, TP, Brito, PMB, Eiras, LMB, Coto, NP, Simonassi, NT, Vieira, CMF, & Duarte, FPL (2026). Activity-Based Costing for 3D printing Mouthguard: a test comparing FDM, SLA with thermoforming. Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, 31(338), 130-148. https://doi.org/10.46642/efd.v31i338.8473

 

Abstract
    Objective: To evaluate the operational cost feasibility and comparative economic performance per unit of producing a mouthguard for the patient using 3D printing (3DP) and compared to conventional methods. Materials and methods: The costs and energy consumption of each method were analyzed, including thermoplastic fabrication and the 3D printers FDM and SLA, using activity-based costing (ABC) to identify and calculate the necessary resources. Results: Thermoplastic fabrication exhibited the lowest cost due to the short operation time, while SLA stood out for its energy efficiency and precision, enabling large-scale production and reducing errors, albeit at a higher initial cost. Conclusion: 3D printing, particularly with FDM, has proven to be a promising and precise alternative, with the potential to replace the conventional method in the long term, offering greater customization, quality, and safety in the development of personalized mouthguards for Sports Dentistry.

    Keywords: Mouthguard. 3D printing. Energy efficiency.

 

Resumo

    Objetivo: Avaliar a viabilidade de produção de um protetor bucal para o paciente por meio de impressão 3D (3DP) e relatar sua competitividade em termos de custo em comparação aos métodos convencionais. Materiais e métodos: Foram analisados ​​os custos e o consumo energético de cada método, incluindo a fabricação termoplástica e as impressoras 3D FDM e SLA, utilizando o custeio baseado em atividades (ABC) para identificar e calcular os recursos necessários. Resultados: A fabricação termoplástica apresentou o menor custo devido ao curto tempo de operação, enquanto a SLA se destacou pela eficiência energética e precisão, permitindo a produção em larga escala e reduzindo erros, embora com um custo inicial mais elevado. Conclusão: A impressão 3D, particularmente com FDM, mostrou-se uma alternativa promissora e precisa, com potencial para substituir o método convencional a longo prazo, oferecendo maior customização, qualidade e segurança no desenvolvimento de protetores bucais personalizados para Odontologia Esportiva.

    Unitermos: Protetor bucal. Impressão 3D. Eficiência energética.

 

Resumen

    Objetivo: Evaluar la viabilidad de los costos operativos y el desempeño económico comparativo por unidad de la producción de un protector bucal para el paciente mediante impresión 3D (3DP), en comparación con los métodos convencionales. Materiales y métodos: Se analizaron los costos y el consumo de energía de cada método, incluyendo la fabricación termoplástica y las impresoras 3D FDM y SLA, utilizando el costeo basado en actividades (ABC) para identificar y calcular los recursos necesarios. Resultados: La fabricación termoplástica presentó el menor costo debido al corto tiempo de operación, mientras que la SLA destacó por su eficiencia energética y precisión, permitiendo la producción a gran escala y reduciendo errores, aunque con un costo inicial más elevado. Conclusión: La impresión 3D, particularmente con FDM, ha demostrado ser una alternativa prometedora y precisa, con el potencial de reemplazar el método convencional a largo plazo, ofreciendo mayor personalización, calidad y seguridad en el desarrollo de protectores bucales personalizados para odontología deportiva.

    Palabras clave: Protector bucal. Impresión 3D. Eficiencia energética.

 

Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, Vol. 31, Núm. 338, Jul. (2026)

---

 

Introduction 

 

    Currently, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer is widely used in the manufacturing of mouthguards due to its impact absorption and stress distribution capabilities, dissipating forces from a smaller to a larger area (Coto et al., 2012; Borges et al., 2020). Several studies have evaluated the material’s ability to protect different structures, such as the central incisor (Verissimo et al., 2015; Gialain et al., 2016), the central incisor with an antagonist (Veríssimo et al., 2017), the incisor with ankylosis (Borges et al., 2020), the central incisor rehabilitated with a dental veneer (Bragança et al., 2021), the incisor with an orthodontic bracket (Alves et al., 2020), the incisor with an impacted canine (Firmiano et al., 2019), dental implants (Carvalho et al., 2018), the temporomandibular joint (Tribst et al., 2020), and the skull. (Tribst et al., 2018)

 

    Mizuhashi et al. (2022) reported that the thermoforming process of EVA results in material stretching, causing thickness reduction in specific regions, such as the incisal area, which compromises occlusal stability. The thickness of the EVA sheet after molding is reduced by approximately half, often requiring multiple layers to achieve the ideal impact absorption thickness. However, this process can cause adhesion issues between layers. Firmiano et al. (2022) demonstrated that even when using different brands including Proform®, Bio-Art®, Essence® Erkodent®, and PolyShok® effective energy absorption can still be achieved.

 

    The most used digital methods for printing these devices are SLA (Moreira et al., 2021; Trzaskowski et al., 2023) and FDM (Li et al., 2020; Pinho, & Piedade, 2021; Saunders et al., 2022; Sousa et al., 2021). Digital methods offer several advantages for sports dentistry applications: The ability to produce more mouthguards in less time, improving productivity; More accurate reproduction, minimizing errors from traditional molding and increasing safety; Precision in controlling thickness, avoiding the loss of thickness observed in thermoforming; Reduced energy consumption compared to thermoforming, which operates at high temperatures (Yamada, & Maeda, 2007; Takahashi et al., 2017); The possibility of product customization through software that allows adjustment of layer thickness in different regions. (Sousa et al., 2021)

 

    Recognizing and addressing issues associated with mouthguard use is highly relevant in this field. Although sports dentistry has only recently been recognized as a specialty in Brazil, it is rapidly advancing in terms of scientific innovation. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the operational cost feasibility and the comparative economic performance per unit of producing mouthguards using 3D printing (3DP) technologies in comparison with conventional methods. Additionally, a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied to integrate economic, operational, and sustainability factors, enabling a comprehensive comparison between manufacturing approaches.

 

Method 

 

Cost data collection and process mapping 

 

    Before detailing the application of the costing methodology, it is important to describe the data used to calculate production costs and how they were obtained. The Activity-Based Costing (ABC) method is based on the principle that activities consume resources, which can be tracked through their respective cost drivers. (Almeida, & Cunha, 2017)

 

    To characterize production costs, all operational resources used at each stage of the manufacturing process were mapped. The evaluated cost drivers included direct labor (DL), measured in man-hours; electricity consumption, measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh); and equipment usage, and measured according to machine operating time and production capacity.

 

    In accordance with Activity-Based Costing principles, all traceable costs associated with each manufacturing activity were identified and allocated to the production of a single mouthguard unit (Table 1).

 

Cost Component	Calculation	Assumption
Energy Cost	Operating time × Power × Electricity rate	Measured experimentally
Material Cost	Constant value	Same material cost assumed for all methods
Labor Cost	Constant value	Operator cost considered equal for comparison
Machine Cost	Constant value	Same Equipment cost and Equipment depreciation standardized assumed for all methods and

Source: Authors

 

Mathematical cost model 

 

    To ensure transparency and reproducibility of the economic analysis, the total manufacturing cost per mouthguard was calculated using a mathematical formulation derived from the Activity-Based Costing framework.

 

C_total = C_energy + C_material + C_labor + C_machine

 

    Where:

• C_total represents the total production cost per mouthguard.

• C_energy represents electricity consumption cost.

• C_material represents the raw material cost.

• C_labor represents the direct labor cost.

• C_machine represents the equipment usage cost.

    Each component was estimated based on experimentally measured operational parameters and market price references.

 

Energy consumption measurement 

 

    Energy consumption measurements were performed to evaluate the electricity demand of each manufacturing process. The equipment analyzed included the Plastificadora P7 thermoforming unit, the CREALITY Halot One SLA/LCD monochrome printer, and the ANYCUBIC 4K printer, which present comparable average acquisition costs.

 

    Electricity consumption was measured using a WASION DOW1310L bifasic electric energy meter. Energy consumption values were recorded during complete production cycles for each fabrication method.

 

    The energy cost was estimated according to the following equation:

 

C_energy = t \times P \times R_e

 

    Where:

• t represents machine operating time (hours).

• P represents equipment power consumption (kW).

• R_e represents the electricity rate (R$/kWh).

    The electricity rate adopted in this study was R$ 0.80/kWh, corresponding to the regional tariff at the time of data collection. Energy consumption included both equipment operation and electrically powered post-processing steps, such as ultraviolet curing required in SLA printing. Manual finishing procedures that did not involve powered equipment were not included in the energy calculation.

 

    When multiple units were produced simultaneously in a single fabrication cycle, the total energy cost was proportionally divided by the number of units produced to obtain the unit energy cost.

 

Material and labor cost assumptions 

 

    Material costs were estimated based on the amount of thermoplastic material required for each mouthguard and current market prices. However, to maintain comparability among manufacturing techniques, equivalent thermoplastic materials were considered for all evaluated scenarios. Therefore, material costs were treated as constant across manufacturing methods and did not influence the comparative cost differences between processes.

 

    Direct labor costs were estimated based on the average operator involvement required during each production cycle. Production time for each manufacturing approach was experimentally measured through three independent fabrication trials under standardized conditions. All tests were performed by the same operator to minimize variability.

 

    The reported production time corresponds to the average total manufacturing cycle per unit, including preparation, fabrication, and finishing steps. Because operator interaction levels were similar among the evaluated fabrication techniques, labor cost was also considered constant across scenarios.

 

    This standardization allowed the comparative analysis to focus primarily on operational variables associated with the manufacturing technologies, particularly energy consumption and equipment utilization.

 

Equipment cost allocation 

 

    Equipment usage cost was incorporated into the ABC model through straight-line depreciation of the manufacturing equipment. Machine acquisition cost, expected useful life, and projected annual production capacity were considered to estimate equipment cost allocation per unit.

 

    The depreciation cost was distributed proportionally across the estimated production lifecycle of each device.

 

Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) 

 

    To complement the quantitative economic evaluation obtained through the Activity-Based Costing model, a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach was applied to integrate additional operational performance indicators relevant to the manufacturing process.

 

    This approach enables the structured comparison of different production technologies by incorporating multiple evaluation criteria simultaneously. The evaluated criteria included economic efficiency, productivity, operational safety, and process reliability.

 

    Each criterion was assigned a weighting factor according to its relative importance in mouthguard manufacturing.

 

    Economic efficiency was considered the primary evaluation criterion to maintain alignment with the central objective of the study, which focuses on the economic feasibility of manufacturing processes. Each manufacturing method was evaluated according to these criteria using a structured scoring system ranging from 1 to 3 points, representing low, moderate, and high performance levels for each parameter. The final score for each manufacturing method was calculated by multiplying the assigned score by the corresponding criterion weight. The MCDA framework was used as a complementary decision-support tool to synthesize the performance of each manufacturing technique, while maintaining the quantitative cost analysis obtained through the ABC method as the primary economic evaluation.

 

Results and discussion 

 

Manufacturing workflow and production time 

 

    The conventional mouthguard fabrication process begins with tray fitting, which takes 1 minute, involving operator activity. Material manipulation and placement require 2 and 1 minutes, respectively, both performed by the operator. Setting time takes 5 minutes, and mold disinfection takes 10 minutes. Plaster pouring takes 10 minutes, while plaster setting requires 30 minutes, the longest step.

 

    During thermoforming, the first layer requires 4 minutes of operator and machine time, followed by 1 minute of vacuuming. Cooling takes 10 minutes without operator or machine involvement. Trimming the first layer takes 3 minutes (operator only). The second thermoforming layer also takes 4 minutes, followed again by 1 minute of vacuuming. Trimming the second layer takes 3 minutes, and cooling again takes 10 minutes. Finishing and polishing require 20 minutes of operator time, and the final adjustment appointment takes another 20 minutes. Altogether, the conventional process totals 135 minutes: 115 minutes of operator involvement and 10 minutes of machine use.

 

    The digital FDM fabrication process begins with digital molding, lasting 5 minutes involving both operator and machine. CAD design takes 5 minutes (operator only). Slicer configuration takes 2 minutes, as does printer preparation. Table cleaning takes 1 minute, followed by sending the print command (1 minute, operator and machine). Printing itself takes 120 minutes (machine only). Cooling takes 5 minutes (machine). Final steps include removing the part (2 minutes), checking integrity (1 minute), cleaning (1 minute), and the final adjustment appointment (5 minutes). In total, FDM fabrication takes 150 minutes, with 25 minutes of operator work and 133 minutes of machine operation.

 

Source: Authors

 

    The digital fabrication process via SLA begins with digital molding, which lasts 5 minutes, involving both the operator and the machine. The work in CAD software also requires 5 minutes, with this step performed only by the operator. Setting up the slicer takes 2 minutes, followed by 1 minute dedicated to cleaning the platform, the vat, and the UV lens, all tasks executed by the operator. Preparing the printer takes 1 minute and involves both the operator and the machine. The print command is given in 1 minute, a task performed by the operator without machine intervention. The actual printing time lasts 105 minutes, being an entirely automated process performed by the machine. In the post-printing phase, removing the piece from the printer takes 2 minutes and is performed by the operator, followed by removing the supports, which also takes 2 minutes. The final cleaning of the piece takes 10 minutes and is done by the machine, followed by the curing process, which also lasts 10 minutes without operator intervention. Finally, the adjustment consultation takes 5 minutes and is performed by the operator. The total process time is 151 minutes, of which 26 minutes involve direct work from the operator, and 131 minutes are machine operation (Table 2).

 

Step	Conventional	FDM	SLA	Operator Time (min)	Machine Time (min)
Impression / Digital scan	1	5	5	✓	✓
CAD design	-	5	5	✓	-
Slicer configuration	-	2	2	✓	-
Printing / Thermoforming	10	120	105	-	✓
Post-processing	23	5	22	✓	✓
Adjustment appointment	20	5	5	✓	-
Total time (min)	135	150	151

Source: Authors

 

Digital workflow and clinical implication 

 

    In this way, proposing intraoral scanning as an innovative resource for obtaining the digital model offers speed, efficiency, potential cost-effectiveness due to time savings, good patient acceptance, distortion reduction, and 3D previewing. Despite the cost, over time, the process of acquiring models of the athlete’s arch becomes similar. A study published by Resnick et al. (2019) demonstrated that digital impressions are more efficient and cost-effective than standard impressions, and implementation costs can be offset within the first year.

 

Source: Authors

 

    One of the main challenges in obtaining dental arch data is the variation in technique among operators; even slight deviations can cause model distortion. This issue can be addressed through the use of intraoral scanners (Giuliodori et al., 2023). In the analog molding process, multiple factors can contribute to distortions in the final model, from choosing the ideal tray to correctly casting the mold. The procedure requires selecting the proper tray to minimize tissue deformation and applying the appropriate anatomical molding technique to capture accurate details of the patient’s dental arch. The model is then created by pouring type III stone plaster with the correct powder-to-liquid ratio, requiring both a water meter and a precise scale.

 

    Concerns regarding copy accuracy and ease of use during printing have always been present. Despite advances in molding materials, factors such as patient discomfort due to repeated tray fittings (Yozbasioglu et al., 2014), clinical and laboratory time, and the need for mold disinfection remain negative aspects of the traditional process (Hardan et al., 2022).

 

    In the present study, the 3D model was created using the ExoCad software, which includes modules and extensions for fabricating bruxism treatment plates. Currently, there is no software specifically designed with adaptations or extensions for manufacturing mouthguards (MGs). For generating 3D models, Szarek, & Paszta (2020) used Autodesk Inventor, while Li (2020) used Dental System 214.

 

Biosafety considerations 

 

    It is essential to completely remove all organic material (e.g., blood, saliva) from the object’s surface. Molds should be rinsed under running water and must not be dried using air or steam, as this can generate aerosols and biological risks. Disinfection involves eliminating pathogenic microorganisms from objects, varying according to the material and the immersion time in different chemical agents. As previously mentioned, each prosthetic step that involves physical transport between clinic and laboratory poses a risk of cross-contamination (Aeran et al., 2014; Guiraldo et al., 2012). Droplets and aerosols present significant biological risks in dental environments, especially considering that viruses can remain infectious on moist surfaces for 2 hours to 9 days. (Peng et al., 2020)

 

    Conventional molding materials and processes present higher biological risks; therefore, disinfection techniques must be carefully applied, respecting the specific characteristics of each material, the disinfectant agent used, and the expertise of both dentist and dental technician. A fully digital workflow can contribute significantly to biosafety control. Scanner tips must be cleaned and sterilized, and scanner cables must also be disinfected. (Amin et al., 2009)

 

Energy consumption analysis 

 

    In terms of energy consumption, the conventional thermoplastic machine recorded a usage of 0.95 kWh per operation, resulting in an estimated cost of R$ 0.76, based on an electricity rate of R$ 0.80/kWh. Producing only one unit during this period, this method showed the highest energy cost per piece among the methods evaluated. The FDM 3D printer (CREALITY Ender 3 V3 SE) consumed 0.35 kWh, generating an approximate cost of R$ 0.28 per unit, representing a significant reduction in energy consumption compared to the conventional method and demonstrating greater efficiency in electricity use. The SLA printer (Anycubic Photon Mono X 4K) operated with a total consumption of only 0.075 kWh, presenting the lowest estimated cost, approximately R$ 0.06. Additionally, it was capable of producing two units within the same period, further reducing the energy cost per piece (Table 3).

 

Method	Energy Consumption (kWh)	Electricity Rate (R$/kWh)	Energy Cost (R$)	Units Produced	Energy Cost per Unit (R$)
Conventional	0.95	0.80	0.76	1	0.76
FDM	0.35	0.80	0.28	1	0.28
SLA	0.075	0.80	0.06	2	0.03

Source: Authors

 

    Another important point is the number of mouthguards that can be produced during this time. With the selected machines, it is possible to produce 2 mouthguards during SLA printing, with costs exceeding the operating time.

 

    One disadvantage of the digital process is the inability to customize mouthguards with names or logos, which could increase athlete adherence to using the mouthguard (Fig. 3). However, the digital process reduces finishing time, requiring only 10 minutes of washing and 10 minutes of curing in the SLA process. In the FDM process, only 5 minutes of finishing with a polishing drill is needed. The conventional method requires more time due to adjustments for inaccuracies that may occur throughout the manual process.

 

Source: Authors

 

Multi-criteria decision analysis 

 

    In the sustainability criterion (Table 4), the FDM method stood out by achieving the maximum score (4), resulting in the highest weighted score (12), considering the weight of 3 assigned to this criterion. This is mainly due to the possibility of reusing the filament and the lower generation of waste during the printing process. The conventional method also performed well, with a score of 3 and a total of 9 points, while the SLA method showed the lowest sustainability (score 1, total 3), primarily due to the need for proper disposal of the resin and chemical waste involved, which makes material reuse more difficult.

 

    The additive manufacturing (AM) methods outperform the conventional process mainly in terms of waste reduction (including man-hours). Regarding energy efficiency, the SLA process achieved the best performance (score 3, total 9), standing out as the most energy-efficient method among those analyzed. This can be attributed to its lower energy demand during active printing time, especially when compared to FDM, which received the lowest score in this criterion (1, total 3), due to the constant need to heat the extruder and print bed. The conventional method showed intermediate performance (score 2, total 6), being less efficient than SLA but more energy-efficient than FDM.

 

Criteria	Description	Teste Index	Conventional		FDM		SLA
			Score	Total	Score	Total	Score	Total
Economic efficiency	Operational cost per unit and energy consumption	4	2	8	3	12	1	4
Productivity	Manufacturing time and workflow efficiency	3	2	5	1	3	3	9
Process reliability	Reduction of manufacturing errors	2	1	2	3	6	3	6
Safety	Operational and biosafety aspects	1	1	1	2	2	3	3
Score				16		23		22

Source: Authors

 

    The results indicate that, while the conventional method remains advantageous in terms of energy efficiency, 3D printing technologies (FDM and SLA) offer significant benefits in precision and productivity. As additive manufacturing becomes more accessible, its role in dentistry is expected to expand, especially considering the existing digital protocols across various specialties. However, the individualized production of mouthguards (MGs) through digital workflows is not yet fully established in clinical practice.

 

Clinical implications and future perspectives 

 

    This study focused on manufacturing parameters, and further research is necessary to explore aspects such as user adaptation and comfort. Li et al. (2020) compared conventional and 3D-printed MGs in a randomized clinical trial, reporting higher satisfaction, particularly regarding comfort and retention, for FDM-manufactured devices. However, that study was limited by differences in material thickness between groups. More recently, Gonçalves et al. (2024) emphasized that standardizing materials and processes could support the inclusion of a new MG classification produced entirely through digital workflows.

 

    Among the evaluated methods, SLA technology demonstrated the highest efficiency in terms of energy consumption per unit produced. SLA allowed for the fabrication of two MGs within the same timeframe, further reducing the energy cost per piece. Although thermoplastic-based methods, such as conventional processing and FDM, offer advantages for fast production cycles, SLA proved to be the most energy-efficient per unit, primarily due to its UV-curing mechanism.

 

Sustainability considerations 

 

    From an operational sustainability perspective, thermoplastic-based processes (FDM and conventional EVA thermoforming) present potential advantages due to reduced solid waste generation and the theoretical possibility of material reprocessing. However, it is important to emphasize that this study did not evaluate industrial-scale recycling, VOC emissions, or perform a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Therefore, sustainability conclusions are limited to measured parameters such as energy consumption and observable material waste during fabrication.

 

    In contrast, SLA utilizes thermoset photopolymer resins, which require controlled disposal due to chemical composition and cannot be remelted after curing. This characteristic may impose additional environmental management considerations at the laboratory level.

 

    Overall, additive manufacturing methods outperformed the conventional approach in reducing waste and optimizing labor time. Energy analysis revealed SLA as the most efficient process due to its minimal active energy demand. FDM showed higher consumption due to the continuous heating of the extruder and build platform, while the conventional method, which requires high temperatures for plasticization, remained the most energy-intensive among the evaluated techniques. A comprehensive environmental evaluation, including Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and emission analysis, is recommended for future studies to provide a broader sustainability assessment.

 

Conclusion 

 

    This study compared conventional thermoforming and additive manufacturing techniques (FDM and SLA) for the production of customized mouthguards by analyzing workflow characteristics, operator involvement, energy consumption, and selected operational criteria using a multi-criteria decision analysis framework.

 

    The results showed that additive manufacturing workflows required substantially lower operator involvement due to the automation of the printing process, although total production time was comparable to the conventional thermoforming technique.

 

    In terms of energy consumption, clear differences were observed between the evaluated methods. The SLA process presented the lowest energy consumption per unit, while the conventional thermoforming process showed the highest energy demand during the evaluated production cycle.

 

    When operational criteria were integrated using the multi-criteria decision analysis, the FDM workflow achieved the highest overall score, followed closely by SLA and the conventional method. This result reflects the balance between automation, workflow organization, and measured operational parameters within the evaluated framework.

 

    It is important to note that this study focused on workflow characteristics and energy consumption during the manufacturing stage. Broader economic analyses, environmental life-cycle assessments, and clinical performance evaluations were outside the scope of the present work and should be addressed in future studies.

 

References 

 

Aeran, H., Agarwal, A., Kumar, V., & Seth, J. (2014). Study of the effect of disinfectant solutions on the physical properties of dental impressions. Indian Journal of Dental Sciences, 3(6), 1-6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352056945

 

Almeida, A., & Cunha, J. (2017). The implementation of an activity-based costing (ABC) system in a manufacturing company. In Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017 (MESIC 2017) (pp. 28-30). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320341563

 

Alves, J.C.C., Borges, A.G., Versluis, A., Soares, C.J., & Veríssimo, C. (2020). Effect of orthodontic bracket type and mouthguard presence on the stress and strain during a frontal impact. Brazilian Dental Journal, 31(5), 540-547. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202002818

 

Amin, W.M., Al-Ali, M.H., Al Tarawneh, S.K., Taha, S.T., Saleh, M.W., & Ereifij, N. (2009). The effects of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy and surface quality of impression materials and gypsum casts. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, 1(2), 81-89. https://doi.org/10.4021/jocmr2009.04.1235

 

Borges, A., Dal Piva, A., Concílio, L., Paes-Junior, T., & Tribst, J. (2020). Mouthguard use effect on the biomechanical response of an ankylosed maxillary central incisor during a traumatic impact: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Life (Basel, Switzerland), 10(11), 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/life10110294

 

Bragança, G.F., Vilela, A., Soares, P., Tantbirojn, D., Versluis, A., & Soares, C.J. (2021). Influence of ceramic veneer thickness and antagonist on impact stresses during dental trauma with and without a mouthguard assessed with finite element analysis. Dental Traumatology, 37(2), 215-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12631

 

Carvalho, V. F., Soares, P. B., Verissimo, C., Pessoa, R.S., Versluis, A., & Soares, C.J. (2018). Mouthguard biomechanics for protecting dental implants from impact: Experimental and finite element impact analysis. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 33(2), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5803

 

Coto, N.P., Meira, J.B., Brito e Dias, R., Driemeier, L., Roveri, G. de O., & Noritomi, P.Y. (2012). Assessment of nose protector for sport activities: Finite element analysis. Dental Traumatology, 28(2), 108-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.2011.01046.x

 

Firmiano, T.C., Oliveira, A.A.D., Costa, P.V.D.M., Cardoso, L.S., Pereira, R.D., & Veríssimo, C. (2022). Influence of different ethylene-vinyl acetate brands used for custom-fitted mouthguard manufacturing on stress and strain during an impact. Dental Traumatology, 38, 431-438. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12746

 

Firmiano, T.C., Oliveira, M., Souza, J.B. de, Soares, C.J., Versluis, A., & Veríssimo, C. (2019). Influence of impacted canines on the stress distribution during dental trauma with and without a mouthguard. Dental Traumatology, 35(4-5), 276-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12477

 

Gialain, I.O., Coto, N.P., Driemeier, L., Noritomi, P.Y., & Dias, R.B. (2016). A three-dimensional finite element analysis of the sports mouthguard. Dental Traumatology, 32(5), 409-415. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12265

 

Giuliodori, G., Rappelli, G., & Aquilanti, L. (2023). Intraoral scans of full dental arches: An in vitro measurement study of the accuracy of different intraoral scanners. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(6), 4776. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064776

 

Gonçalves, V.P.D., Vieira, C.M.F., & Colorado, H.A. (2024). The production and materials of mouthguards: Conventional vs additive manufacturing. A systematic review. Heliyon, 10(14). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34294

 

Guiraldo, R.D., Borsato, T.T., Berger, S.B., Lopes, M.B., Gonini-Jr, A., & Sinhoreti, M.A. (2012). Surface detail reproduction and dimensional accuracy of stone models: Influence of disinfectant solutions and alginate impression materials. Brazilian Dental Journal, 23(4), 417-421. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-64402012000400018

 

Hardan, L., Bourgi, R., Cuevas-Suárez, C.E., Lukomska-Szymanska, M., Cornejo-Ríos, E., Tosco, V., Monterubbianesi, R., Mancino, S., Eid, A., Mancino, D., Kharouf, N., & Haikel, Y. (2022). Disinfection procedures and their effect on the microorganism colonization of dental impression materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Bioengineering (Basel), 9(3), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9030123

 

Li, Z., Wang, S., Ye, H., Lv, L., Zhao, X., Liu, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Preliminary clinical application of complete workflow of digitally designed and manufactured sports mouthguards. The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 33(1), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6348

 

Mizuhashi, F., Watarai, Y., & Suzuki, T. (2022). Difference in thickness of vacuum-formed mouthguards using ethylene vinyl acetate and polyolefin sheets. Dental Traumatology, 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12811

 

Moreira, M., Ramo, J.C., Messias, A.M., Neto, M.A., Amaro, A., & Reis, P.N.B. (2021). Impact response of different materials for sports mouthguards. Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 57, 63-69. https://doi.org/10.3221/IGF-ESIS.57.06

 

Peng, X., Xu, X., Li, Y., Cheng, L., Zhou, X., & Ren, B. (2020). Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice. International Journal of Oral Science, 12(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-020-0075-9

 

Pinho, A.C., & Piedade, A.P. (2021). Sandwich multi-material 3D-printed polymers: Influence of aging on the impact and flexure resistances. Polymers (Basel), 13(22), 4030. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13224030

 

Resnick, C.M., Doyle, M., Calabrese, C.E., Sanchez, K., & Padwa, B.L. (2019). Is it cost effective to add an intraoral scanner to an oral and maxillofacial surgery practice? Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 77(8), 1687-1694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2019.03.011

 

Saunders, J., Lißner, M., Townsend, D., Petrinic, N., & Bergmann, J. (2022). Impact behaviour of 3D printed cellular structures for mouthguard applications. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 4020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08018-1

 

Sousa, A.M., Pinho, A.C., & Piedade, A.P. (2021). Mechanical properties of 3D printed mouthguards: Influence of layer height and device thickness. Materials and Design, 203, 109624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109624

 

Szarek, A., & Paszta, P. (2020). Possibilities of the manufacturing and simulation of the load on a customised mouthguard used in combat sports. Fibres & Textiles in Eastern Europe, 28(2), 110-118.

 

Takahashi, M., Satoh, Y., & Iwasaki, S. (2017). Effect of thermal shrinkage during thermoforming on the thickness of fabricated mouthguards: Part 2 pressure formation. Dental Traumatology, 33(2), 106-109. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12291

 

Tribst, J., Dal Piva, A., Bottino, M.A., Kleverlaan, C.J., & Koolstra, J.H. (2020). Mouthguard use and TMJ injury prevention with different occlusions: A three-dimensional finite element analysis. Dental Traumatology, 36(6), 662-669. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12577

 

Tribst, J., Dal Piva, A.M. de O., Borges, A., & Bottino, M.A. (2018). Influence of custom-made and stock mouthguard thickness on biomechanical response to a simulated impact. Dental Traumatology, 34(6), 429-437. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12432

 

Trzaskowski, M., Mańka-Malara, K., Szczesio-Włodarczyk, A., Sokołowski, J., Kostrzewa-Janicka, J., & Mierzwińska-Nastalska, E. (2023). Evaluation of mechanical properties of 3D-printed polymeric materials for possible application in mouthguards. Polymers, 15, 898. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15040898

 

Veríssimo, C., Bicalho, A.A., Soares, P.B., Tantbirojn, D., Versluis, A., & Soares, C.J. (2017). The effect of antagonist tooth contact on the biomechanical response of custom-fitted mouthguards. Dental Traumatology, 33(1), 57-63. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12284

 

Verissimo, C., Santos-Filho, P.C., Tantbirojn, D., Versluis, A., & Soares, C.J. (2015). Modifying the biomechanical response of mouthguards with hard inserts: A finite element study. American Journal of Dentistry, 28(2), 116-120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26087579/

 

Yamada, J., & Maeda, Y. (2007). Thermoforming process for fabricating oral appliances: Influence of heating and pressure application timing on formability. Journal of Prosthodontics, 16(6), 452-456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00222.x

 

Yozbasioglu, E., Kurt, H., Turunç, R., & Bilir, H. (2014). Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health, 14, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10

Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, Vol. 31, Núm. 338, Jul. (2026)