Experts support mouthguards across multiple contact sports
Executive summary
A broad consensus of dental and sports-medicine authorities says mouthguards reduce dental and orofacial injuries in contact sports; studies report risk reductions ranging from large percentage drops to a 1.6–1.9× higher risk when mouthguards are not used [1] [2] [3]. Professional position statements and reviews advise custom-made mouthguards as the most effective option and recommend their use in collision sports such as rugby, hockey, football and boxing [4] [5] [6].
1. What experts say: consistent endorsement from dentistry and sports medicine
Major dental organizations and specialist bodies uniformly endorse mouthguard use to prevent sports-related dental trauma: the American Dental Association states mouthguards “reduce the risk of sport-related dental injuries” [5], the American College of Prosthodontists lists mouthguards alongside helmets and face masks as “the most significant factor” in preventing orofacial injuries [6], and narrative reviews conclude mouthguard use is “associated with a reduction in the risk of orofacial trauma” in contact sports [7] [2].
2. How strong the evidence is: measurable risk reductions, with caveats
Clinical and review literature reports substantial protective effects—examples include assertions that mouthguards can decrease dental injuries by as much as 90% in some studies and that the risk of orofacial trauma rises by about 1.6–1.9 times when mouthguards are not used [1] [2] [3]. However, narrative reviews note there is limited centralized, large-scale monitoring data and heterogeneity across study types and mouthguard designs, which constrains precise quantification [2] [3].
3. Best practice: custom-made mouthguards recommended for high-risk sports
Guidance from specialists calls out custom-made sports mouthguards (CSMs) as the gold standard: they provide superior fit, comfort and shock absorption and “should be strongly considered and recommended for full contact or collision sports” [4]. Professional position documents and reviews emphasize material quality and correct fit as key to maximizing protection [8] [4].
4. Barriers to use: comfort, communication and compliance problems
Athletes often forgo mouthguards because of poor retention, discomfort, interference with breathing or speech, and perceptions they aren’t needed—especially in lower-contact activities [1]. Reviews and commentaries flag these human factors as the main limiters of real-world effectiveness despite clear protective potential [2] [7].
5. Policy debate: voluntary guidance versus mandates
Some clinicians and public-health commentators argue for mandatory “no mouthguard, no play” rules in pediatric and adolescent contact sports to improve uptake and prevent avoidable injuries [7] [9]. Others point to variability in governing-body rules and to concerns about enforcement, athlete choice, and the cost/availability of custom devices; available sources document the advocacy for mandates but do not present large-scale policy evaluation data [9] [7].
6. Emerging angles: technology, markets and broader adoption
Industry reporting and market analyses show growing demand for mouthguards—driven by youth sports mandates, sensor integration (smart mouthguards), and a move toward customization—and estimate expanding market size as awareness rises [10] [11]. Sport-governing bodies have piloted sensor-equipped devices for head-injury assessment, widening the potential role of mouthguards beyond dental protection [5] [7].
7. How to interpret competing claims: efficacy versus real-world impact
Clinical studies and position statements demonstrate efficacy in reducing dental and orofacial trauma [5] [4] [2]. Real-world impact, however, depends on consistent use, proper fit and maintenance; up to a quarter of injuries may still occur despite a mouthguard, often as milder injuries, according to some studies—indicating protection is substantial but not absolute [1].
8. Practical takeaway for athletes, coaches and parents
For participants in collision or regular-contact sports, experts recommend prioritizing a properly fitting mouthguard—ideally custom-made—to maximize protection [4] [8]. Coaches and organizers seeking higher compliance should address comfort, education and cost barriers; sources note lack of guidance and communication can limit adoption [2] [1].
Limitations: sources here are drawn from dental associations, narrative reviews, position statements, clinical studies and market reports contained in the supplied set; available sources do not provide a single, centralized large-scale randomized trial definitively answering all performance or concussion questions, and they do not report uniform policy outcomes from mandatory programs [2] [3].