BioShield

Product

A mouthguard that does the same job from a different feedstock

The goal is unglamorous on purpose: match the performance of a conventional boil-and-bite mouthguard while replacing its petroleum feedstock with a plant-based one, at a price a high school athletic department can absorb.

Labial wallTooth channelOcclusal pad
Concept render Concept render. No physical prototype exists. This is an illustration of intended form, not a photograph of a made object.

Selection criteria

The five tests a material has to pass

We are not looking for the greenest material. We are looking for the greenest material that is still a working mouthguard. These are the screens, in the order we apply them:

  1. Impact absorption

    It has to spread the energy of a hit across time and area. A material that fails here is not a mouthguard, whatever else it is.

  2. Thermoforming window

    It has to soften below the temperature of boiling water so a boil-and-bite fit works at home, and hold that shape afterwards.

  3. Oral biocompatibility

    It sits in a mouth for hours a week. Non-negotiable, and the reason several otherwise attractive bioplastics are already out.

  4. Cost per unit at volume

    A school buying 200 guards will not pay a sustainability premium. If it cannot reach parity, it does not get adopted.

  5. End of life

    Where does it go afterwards? This is the criterion we are currently least able to satisfy, and we say so.

Shortlist

What we are comparing, with the catch for each

Still an open decision. The honest state of it:

Sugarcane bio-based EVA

Lead candidate

Why it is on the list
Chemically identical to incumbent EVA, so performance and tooling are known quantities. Commercially available now. Large reduction in cradle-to-gate carbon versus fossil feedstock.
The catch
Not biodegradable. Costs more than fossil EVA today. The end-of-life problem is unchanged.

Natural rubber

Under review

Why it is on the list
Genuinely renewable, genuinely biodegradable, and an excellent energy absorber.
The catch
Latex allergy makes it unsafe for a meaningful share of athletes, which is close to disqualifying for a product worn in the mouth.

PLA and PHA bioplastics

Under review

Why it is on the list
PHA is biodegradable in marine conditions. Both are plant-derived.
The catch
PLA is too rigid and softens at temperatures a mouth can reach. PHA currently costs far too much and is hard to source at volume.

Later

Where this goes after the mouthguard

The mouthguard is the wedge, not the business. The same problem — a small petroleum-based consumable that every athlete buys, uses up and discards — describes shin-pad tape, grip tape, and a long tail of sports consumables. We are starting with one product and will not describe the others as real until one of them is.

Future direction. Nothing beyond the mouthguard is in development.

Watch us try

We send an update when something actually happens — a material decision, a first mould, a test result, or a failure worth writing up. No schedule, no marketing.

Join the waitlist