A comparative study of mechanical resistance of two reciprocating files.
Journal
Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry
ISSN: 1989-5488
Titre abrégé: J Clin Exp Dent
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101603132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
06
12
2018
accepted:
04
02
2019
entrez:
20
4
2019
pubmed:
20
4
2019
medline:
20
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the cyclic fatigue resistance of two different Nickel-Titanium instruments, Reziflow (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) and WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Two groups of 20 different NiTi endodontic instruments of identical tip size of 0.25 mm were tested; Reziflow and Wave-One Gold primary. Cyclic fatigue testing was performed in a stainless steel simulated root canal manufactured by reproducing the instrument's size and taper. A simulated root canal with a 90 degrees angle of curvature and 5 mm radius of curvature was constructed for the instruments tested. The centre of the curvature was 5 mm from the tip of the instrument and the curved segment of the canal was approximately 5 mm in length. Both the instruments were used in the same preset program specific for the WaveOne instruments. Each instrument was rotated until fracture occurred and the time to fracture (TtF) and the length of the fractured fragment were recorded. Means and standard deviations of TtF and fragment length were calculated and data were subjected to statical analysis ( Statistically significant differences ( Rezifllow instruments were associated with a significantly higher cyclic fatigue resistance than WaveOne Gold instruments.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the cyclic fatigue resistance of two different Nickel-Titanium instruments, Reziflow (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) and WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
Two groups of 20 different NiTi endodontic instruments of identical tip size of 0.25 mm were tested; Reziflow and Wave-One Gold primary. Cyclic fatigue testing was performed in a stainless steel simulated root canal manufactured by reproducing the instrument's size and taper. A simulated root canal with a 90 degrees angle of curvature and 5 mm radius of curvature was constructed for the instruments tested. The centre of the curvature was 5 mm from the tip of the instrument and the curved segment of the canal was approximately 5 mm in length. Both the instruments were used in the same preset program specific for the WaveOne instruments. Each instrument was rotated until fracture occurred and the time to fracture (TtF) and the length of the fractured fragment were recorded. Means and standard deviations of TtF and fragment length were calculated and data were subjected to statical analysis (
RESULTS
RESULTS
Statistically significant differences (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Rezifllow instruments were associated with a significantly higher cyclic fatigue resistance than WaveOne Gold instruments.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31001392
doi: 10.4317/jced.55487
pii: 55487
pmc: PMC6461731
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e231-e235Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement:The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exist.
Références
J Endod. 2001 May;27(5):333-6
pubmed: 11485251
Int Endod J. 2004 Jun;37(6):353-8
pubmed: 15186240
J Endod. 2004 Oct;30(10):716-8
pubmed: 15448466
J Endod. 2005 Mar;31(3):180-2
pubmed: 15735464
Int Endod J. 2006 Sep;39(9):700-8
pubmed: 16916359
Int Endod J. 2006 Oct;39(10):755-63
pubmed: 16948660
J Endod. 2006 Nov;32(11):1031-43
pubmed: 17055902
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007 Jun;103(6):843-7
pubmed: 17428695
Int Endod J. 2008 Apr;41(4):339-44
pubmed: 18081803
J Endod. 2008 Aug;34(8):1003-5
pubmed: 18634935
Minerva Stomatol. 2008 Sep;57(9):393-8
pubmed: 18923374
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Sep;108(3):e152-6
pubmed: 19716485
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010 Jan;109(1):e60-6
pubmed: 19926504
Int Endod J. 2010 Dec;43(12):1063-8
pubmed: 21080616
Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2010;46(4):400-4
pubmed: 21169671
Int Endod J. 2011 Sep;44(9):843-9
pubmed: 21564139
J Endod. 2011 Sep;37(9):1293-5
pubmed: 21846552
Int Endod J. 2012 May;45(5):469-74
pubmed: 22188417
J Endod. 2012 Feb;38(2):222-5
pubmed: 22244641
Int Endod J. 2012 Jul;45(7):614-8
pubmed: 22268461
J Endod. 2012 Apr;38(4):541-4
pubmed: 22414846
Int Endod J. 2012 Sep;45(9):802-6
pubmed: 22429241
J Endod. 2012 Jul;38(7):987-9
pubmed: 22703666
J Endod. 2012 Oct;38(10):1408-11
pubmed: 22980189
Odontology. 2014 Jan;102(1):31-5
pubmed: 23076495
J Endod. 2013 Feb;39(2):163-72
pubmed: 23321225
Odontology. 2015 Jan;103(1):56-60
pubmed: 24197177
Aust Endod J. 2013 Dec;39(3):151-4
pubmed: 24279663
Med Sci Monit. 2014 Mar 06;20:374-8
pubmed: 24603777
Aust Endod J. 2015 Apr;41(1):24-8
pubmed: 24697976
J Endod. 2014 Aug;40(8):1228-30
pubmed: 25069938
J Endod. 2014 Sep;40(9):1451-3
pubmed: 25146031
J Endod. 2014 Sep;40(9):1494-7
pubmed: 25146041
Odontology. 2016 Jan;104(1):77-81
pubmed: 25433447
Restor Dent Endod. 2016 Aug;41(3):176-81
pubmed: 27508158
Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2017 Nov 08;8(2):53-58
pubmed: 29299189