Impact of facial protection on lacerations and dental injuries
| Author(s) and journal | Study findings |
| LaPrade et al,4 Am J Sports Med, 1995 | Lower rate of facial lacerations (recorded in number per 1000 player-hours) during games and practice in the face mask cohort compared with the historical cohort (14.7 to 15.1 and 0.0 to 0.2 vs 21.8 and 0.6, respectively; based on 95% CI) |
| Benson et al,13 JAMA, 1999 | Risk of facial laceration was 2.31 times greater in the HFS cohort compared with the FFS cohort (p<0.001, CI 1.53 to 3.48) |
| Bunn,15 Phys Sportsmed, 2008 | Significantly higher ISS for forehead lacerations in the HFS cohort compared with the NFS cohort (4 (SD 0.15) and 2.75 (SD 0.49), respectively, p<0.05) |
| Significantly higher ISS for cheek lacerations in the HFS cohort compared with the NFS cohort (3.69 (SD 0.35) and 2.30 (SD 0.49), respectively, p<0.05) | |
| Benson et al,13 JAMA, 1999 | Risk of dental injury was 9.9 times greater in the HFS cohort compared with the FFS cohort (p<0.007, CI 1.88 to 5.21) |
FFP, full facial protection; FFS, full face shield; HFS, half face shield; ISS, injury severity score; NFP, no facial protection; NFS, no face shield; PFP, partial facial protection; RR, relative risk.