Face masks and basketball: NCAA division I consumer trends and a review of over-the-counter face masks

Abstract

Objectives/hypothesis: This study aims to: 1) determine the current consumer trends of over-the-counter (OTC) and custom-made face mask usage among National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletic programs; and 2) provide a literature review of OTC face guards and a classified database.

Study design: Literature review and survey.

Methods: Consumer trends were obtained by contacting all 352 NCAA Division I programs. Athletic trainers present in the office when called answered the following questions: 1) "When an athlete breaks his or her nose, is a custom or generic face guard used?" and 2) "What brand is the generic face guard that is used?" Data was analyzed to determine trends among athletic programs. Also, a database of OTC devices available was generated using PubMed, Google, and manufacturer Web sites.

Results: Among the 352 NCAA Division I athletic programs, 254 programs participated in the survey (72% response rate). The majority preferred custom-made guards (46%). Disadvantages included high cost and slow manufacture turnaround time. Only 20% of the programs strictly used generic brands. For the face mask database, 10 OTC products were identified and classified into four categories based on design, with pricing ranging between $35.99 and $69.95.

Conclusion: Only a handful of face masks exist for U.S. consumers, but none of them have been reviewed or classified by product design, sport application, price, and collegiate consumer use. This project details usage trends among NCAA Division I athletic programs and provides a list of available devices that can be purchased to protect the nose and face during sports.

Level of evidence: NA. Laryngoscope, 126:1054-1060, 2016.

Keywords: Face mask; face guard; nasal fracture; orthotic face mask; over-the-counter face mask.

Figure 1

Kobe Bryant wearing a custom facemask. Photo courtesy of Jesse Johnson-USA Today Sports.

Figure 2

Photo database of the 4 main OTC facemask design groups: cage with chin support (A), polyacrylamide H-design with cushions (B), polyacrylamide without cushions (C), and full facial padding (D). All images were provided by and copied with permission by the manufacturers.

Figure 3

Facemask preference breakdown. The majority of the respondents (46 percent) indicated the sole use of custom-made facial guards; 30 percent of the respondents pointed out that they prefer the usage of combined OTC and custom face guard; 20 percent of the respondents claimed that they strictly use H-design with cushion generic brands due to costliness; 4 percent of departments do not provide any face mask options for injured athletes.

Figure 4

Face Mask preferences among conferences broken down by power rank. Top 8 conferences, conferences rank # 9–16, rank #17–24, and rank #25–32). In general, all conferences have teams that use generic and custom in some capacity. The majority of conferences have teams that only use custom made products, with the second majority being the use of both generic and custom made in tandem.

Figure 5

Conferences arranged by power ranking and organized into groups by facemask preference. In general, teams with lower power rankings utilized generic brands more often than custom made models.

Figure 6

Facemask preference broken down by state and depicted in the map illustration. Preference breakdown seems to have no obvious geographical determinant, as the majority reveals preference toward custom masks. Note that a state colored in light gray indicates custom mask majority, while white indicates no response from schools in that state. Similarly, black, gray, and dark gray are in the minority and indicate majority of both, genetic, and a custom/generic tie, respectively.