The following is a tabulation of prior art that presently appears relevant:
Dental injuries are the most common form of oral-facial injuries in sports. Typical injuries include fractured teeth, subluxated teeth, avulsed teeth, jaw fracture, condylar fracture and joint dislocation. The majority of these injuries occur in, so called, non-contact sports where mouthguard wear is optional for the participant. The American Dental Association has actively taken steps to increase public awareness of the need for mouthguard wear in nearly all sports. Accordingly, this invention can be utilized in every sport or activity where the use of a mouthguard is recommended. This includes, but is not limited to, football, lacrosse, hockey, field hockey, rugby, basketball, volleyball, baseball, softball, soccer, skateboarding, cycling, wrestling, martial arts, and gymnastics. Unfortunately, most sports participants, with the exception of those required by rules, are reluctant to wear a mouthguard. There are perhaps several reasons for this. One major factor is that there has never been a reliable, convenient way for an athlete to keep a mouthguard in his or her possession once it is removed from the mouth, as is often necessary during time-outs or between plays—a problem that this invention helps remedy. While this dilemma has been partially addressed in sports such as football, where a helmet strap has been incorporated into the design so that the mouthguard remains attached to a facemask via a strap or string, the fact remains that many athletes dislike having the mouthguard loosely swinging in front of them and choose instead to wear a strapless mouthguard. Accordingly, such participants are relegated to either holding the mouthguard in their hand or awkwardly trying to wedge it between bars of the facemask when it is not in the mouth—a practice that often results in permanent loss of the mouthguard. As for sports which do not utilize a facemask, players have had even fewer options and have had no reliable, convenient system or set-up for dealing with a mouthguard when it is not in the participant's mouth. This particular invention solves this problem by using magnetic forces which are uniquely oriented to securely attach the mouthguard in a convenient manner. When removed from the mouth, it keeps the mouthguard securely in place, readily available for reinsertion.
Marsh, in U.S. patent application Publication No. US 2011/0155146 A1, suggests the use of magnetic forces to releasably fasten a mouthpiece. In his design, the magnetic forces are arranged such that the mouthguard is retained perpendicular to a binding surface or uniform. My testing has shown that in such a perpendicular position, the mouthguard is easily dislodged, which is unacceptable as this usually results in permanent loss of the mouthguard. Furthermore, his design requires placing the magnet in peripheral sidewalls of the mouthguard, which can be dangerous to the user as this places the magnet in close proximity to the teeth where an offending blow will trap the magnet between the teeth and the offending force. This could easily result in injury to the teeth or supporting structures.
Wright, in U.S. patent application Publication No. US 2012/0285473 A1, suggests locating a magnet or magnets on the occlusal or biting surface of a mouthguard. This too is dangerous to the user since the magnets are located in close proximity to the tooth structure and a heavy blow to the chin would force the upper and lower teeth together. The magnet is then trapped between the upper and lower teeth which greatly increases the chance of damage to tooth structure. He suggests locating the magnet or magnets within a scaffolding system on the biting surface which increases the thickness of the mouthguard in only the incisor and molar regions. This increase in thickness in only these areas prevents an even distribution of force to the entire dental arch. The forces resulting from a blow to the chin are then concentrated to the area in which the magnets are located, further increasing the chance of injury. In addition, the idea of using a plurality of magnets in a mouthguard is undesirable since accidental swallowing of two or more magnets can result in attraction of the magnets within the gastrointestinal system. This is very dangerous as the delicate tissues of the intestinal tract can be trapped between two magnets, resulting in serious injury or even death. Since the users of mouthguards often chew on the peripheral parts, such a scenario is quite possible. However, if only one magnet is incorporated into the mouthguard design, accidental swallowing is of no serious consequence. Wright also suggests using the outer layer facial flanges of a mouthguard for magnet location, similar to that suggested by Marsh above.
To enhance the magnetic retentive forces between a user's facemask and a mouthguard, a clamp system has been suggested. However, the previously proposed clamp mechanisms are fixed, rigid systems. My experimentation has shown that a fixed, rigid system is not adequate to prevent accidental detachment of the mouthguard as a result of incidental contact such as a bump or a jar.
Besides the problem with increased susceptibility to injury due to magnet location and an increased likelihood of accidental detachment, previous designs also necessitate that the mouthguard be bulkier along peripheral sidewalls or occlusal surfaces in order to accommodate the magnet or magnets. This added thickness can have a negative impact on breathing or the ability to speak clearly, which is important for communication with teammates and coaches.
In addition, prior art suggests using magnets in the size range of 2-10 mm in length and 3-6 mm in width. These smaller sizes, which are necessary to fit the magnets within the confines of peripheral sidewalls or occlusal surfaces, do not, according to my testing, provide adequate retentive force to prevent accidental detachment and subsequent loss of the mouthguard.
This invention is unique and an improvement over prior art in that it utilizes the palatal area of the mouthguard for location of the magnet. Prior art has suggested locating the magnet on peripheral sidewalls or occlusal surfaces. My novel, palatal placement of the magnet is an improvement over previous designs in that it reduces the possibility of injury to the teeth, gum structures, or lips from a heavy blow which can crush or trap the magnet between these delicate structures and the offending force. This novel, palatal placement of the magnet also allows the mouthguard to be less bulky in the labial and occlusal regions which is important for improved breathing and communication.
This invention is also unique in that a magnet is positioned palatally within a mouthguard such that the magnetic force retains the mouthguard parallel to a binding surface and facilitates a centrally located retentive force. Prior art locates the magnet and its resulting magnetic force peripherally, on either the peripheral sidewalls or on the occlusal surface. My experimentation has shown that this peripheral location of the magnetic force makes the mouthguard much more vulnerable to accidental detachment. My novel, palatal arrangement centers the magnetic force over the body of the mouthguard, which keeps the mouthguard more securely attached to the binding surface and reduces the possibility of accidental detachment.
Another advantage of locating the magnet in the palatal area is that this allows the use of a larger magnet. My testing has shown that this is an extremely important factor in the prevention of accidental detachment. Prior art suggests the use of magnets in the size range of 2-10 mm in length and 3-6 mm in width. These smaller sizes are used since the magnet's location in peripheral sidewalls or occlusal surfaces restricts the surface area available for placement of the magnet. My experimentation has shown that these smaller sizes are not of sufficient strength to adequately retain the mouthguard, as the size and magnetic strength of magnets are proportional to one another. This invention utilizes the larger surface area of the palate, which is unique for this application, and allows for the use of magnets which are larger without being obstructive and provides for much improved retention.
This invention utilizes rare-earth magnets, primarily (but not limited to) neodymium-iron-boron, to generate a magnetic force between the mouthguard and its particular attachment area. The mouthguard is embedded with the rare-earth magnet in the palatal area. The shape of the magnets most often include, but are not limited to, cylindrical or disk shapes, and the sizes may vary depending on the particular material involved. However, the shape and size of magnets chosen must be inconspicuous to the user, yet of sufficient strength to prevent accidental dislodgement of the mouthguard from its attached position. With my novel design, a magnet as large as 20 mm in diameter can be hidden in the palatal area without being noticeable to the wearer.
Due to the oral environment, the magnets may be coated with a moisture resistant and wear resistant coating such as nylon, PTFE (Teflon), or other rubber-like material. Alternatively, the magnet may be encased in an impact resistant casing which is sealed with an epoxy-type or plastic-type coating. These magnets may also be embedded in any of the more commonly used mouthguard materials such as EVA(ethylene vinyl-acetate) or other thermoplastics.
For the purpose of discussion, the area around which the magnetic mouthguard is attached will be referred to as the “docking area”. Similarly, the attachment apparatus to which the magnetic mouthguard is attached is referred to as the “docking station”. When the mouthguard is magnetically attached to the docking station, it will be referred to as being “docked” or in the “docked position”. There are many possible docking areas which include, but are not limited to, the facemask area of a helmet, chin-straps, wristbands, headbands, belts, shorts, pants, and jerseys. Additionally, the docking area may also include, but is not limited to, surfaces appropriate for longer term storage such as the side or ceiling of a locker or the bottom of a skateboard.
In the case of facemask attachment, the facemasks themselves are most always constructed of a steel material which makes them intrinsically magnetic. Thus, the magnetic mouthguard may be attached to any area of the facemask in any position desired for convenience. However, my testing has shown that direct attachment to the facemask provides insufficient retentive force and allows for easy dislodgement of the mouthguard with subsequent loss. Another advantage of the present invention is that a more secure attachment is achieved utilizing an attachment apparatus with a novel, non-rigid, magnetic button assembly with elastic properties. This unique docking station assembly may be affixed to the facemask via an impact-resistant plastic clip to form a reliable, secure, docking station. A wide range of impact-resistant plastic materials may be used to fabricate the clip including, but not limited to, polycarbonates, nylons and their mixtures.
As for wristbands, headbands, and the like, a docking station may be created by inserting a magnet between an inner layer and an outer layer of elastic material. Traditionally, terry cloth, which is made of cotton or a cotton mix, has been used in the manufacture of “sweatbands” by folding the material back on itself, thereby producing an inner and an outer layer. The magnet may be inserted between the two layers of material and affixed either permanently with stitching, or semi-permanently, utilizing an opening in the outer layer that is closed with a hook-and-loop mechanism or a snap.
Similarly, for accessories or clothing which utilize a single layer of material such as nylon, polyester, or some of the newer synthetic-mix materials designed specifically for athletic performance, the docking station may be created by attaching the magnet via a pocket or flap which is sewn to the outer surface of the material. In this case, the pocket or flap may be closed utilizing a hook-and-loop mechanism or a snap. Smaller-sized elastic bands may be fabricated for use on belts or chinstraps in a similar fashion.
Whether a dual-layer fabric design or a single layer fabric design is utilized for creating the docking station, in all instances the material chosen must have excellent elastic properties with an appreciable degree of stretching capability. This unique combination of a magnetic force with an elastic material is very important in the prevention of accidental detachment of the mouthguard from a bump or a jar. Such incidental contact with the mouthguard may go unnoticed by the wearer and lead to permanent loss if the attachment is not secure or reliable.
Although the description above contains many specificities, these should not be construed as limiting the scope of the embodiments but as merely providing illustrations of some of several embodiments. For example, the mouthguard could be made of more than one material in a composite-like manner and could be adapted to many different designs by adding a palatal portion to the mouthguard. Thus, the scope of the embodiments should be determined by the appended claims and their legal equivalents, rather than by the examples given.
This application claims the benefit of provisional patent application Ser. No. 61/578,235 Filed 2011 Dec. 21 by the present inventor.