The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Fatigue Resistance of Two Nickel–Titanium Rotary Instruments before and after Ex Vivo Root Canal Treatment

Andrea Del Giudice, Alessandro Mazzoni, Maurilio D'Angelo

Citation Information : Del Giudice A, Mazzoni A, D'Angelo M. Fatigue Resistance of Two Nickel–Titanium Rotary Instruments before and after Ex Vivo Root Canal Treatment. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (7):728-732.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2875

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 19-08-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study is twofold: to evaluate cyclic fatigue resistance differences of two different nickel–titanium rotary instruments, brand new and after an ex vivo instrumentation of single root extracted teeth. Materials and methods: Twenty new S One 20.06 were randomly divided into two groups. The first group (n = 10) was immediately subjected to a cyclic fatigue test (S One Group I). The second group (n = 10) (S one Group II) performed a cyclic fatigue test after three ex vivo root canal treatment with a single-file technique. The same process has been carried out for 20 M-Two 20.06 instruments. Results: Mean time to fracture (TtF) for Group I was 51.14 ± 1.28 for S One and 32.62 ± 0.17 for M-Two 20.06 and for Group II was 46.00 ± 0.99 for S One and 27.75 ± 1.58 for M-Two 20.06. The reduction in TtF values from Group I to Group II was 11% for S One and 15% for M-Two. Statistical analysis found significant differences in all the groups examined (p value < 0.05). Mean fragment length (FL) for Group I was 3.07 ± 0.17 for S One and 3.05 ± 0.14 for M-Two 20.06 and for Group II was 3.05 ± 0.07 for S One and 3.05 ± 0.14 for M-Two 20.06. Statistical analysis was pursued, and no significant difference was found (p value > 0.05). Conclusion: The S-One showed significantly more resistance to cyclic fatigue stress than M-Two for both new and used instruments. This validates the hypothesis that the AF H wire enables the S One files to endure more the cyclic fatigue stresses. Clinical significance: This study demonstrates the cyclic fatigue resistance of a new endodontic instrument after repetitive usage.


PDF Share
  1. Tabassum S, Zafar K, Umer F. Nickel–titanium rotary file systems: what's new? Eur Endod J 2019;4(3):111–117.
  2. Algahtani F, Huang X, Haapasalo M, et al. Fatigue resistance of ProTaper gold exposed to high-concentration sodium hypochlorite in double curvature artificial canal. Bioact Mater 2019;9(4):245–248. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2019.07.003.
  3. Kim HC, Hwang YJ, Jung DW, et al. Micro-computed tomography and Scanning electron microscopy comparisons of two nickel–titanium rotary root canal instruments used with reciprocating motion. Scanning 2013;35(2):112–118. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21039.
  4. Higuera O, Plotino G, Tocci L, et al. Cyclic fatigue resistance of 3 different nickel–titanium reciprocating instruments in artificial canals. J Endod 2015;41(6):913–915. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.01.023.
  5. Gambarini G, Galli M, Seracchiani M, et al. In vivo evaluation of operative torque generated by two nickel–titanium rotary instruments during root canal preparation. Eur J Dent 2019;13(4): 556–562. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698369.
  6. Testarelli L, Gallottini L, Gambarini G. Mechanical properties of nickel–titanium files following multiple heat sterilizations. Minerva Stomatol 2003;52(4):169–173.
  7. Gambarini G, Plotino G, Piasecki L, et al. Deformations and cyclic fatigue resistance of nickel–titanium instruments inside a sequence. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2015;6(1):6–9. DOI: 10.11138/ads/2015.6.1.006.
  8. Arias A, Macorra JC, Govindjee S, et al. Effect of gamma-ray sterilizationon phase transformation behavior and fatigue resistance of contemporary nickel–titanium instruments. Clin Oral Investig 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03185-4.
  9. Di Nardo D, Gambarini G, Seracchiani M, et al. Influence of different cross-section on cyclic fatigue resistance of two nickel–titanium rotary instruments with same heat treatment: an in vitro study. Saudi Endod J 2020; in press.
  10. Gambarini G, Galli M, Di Nardo D, et al. Differences in cyclic fatigue lifespan between two different heat treated NiTi endodontic rotary instruments: WaveOne gold vs EdgeOne fire. J Clin Exp Dent 2019;11(7):e609–e613. DOI: 10.4317/jced.55839.
  11. Gambarini G, Miccoli G, Seracchiani M, et al. Role of the flat-designed surface in improving the cyclic fatigue resistance of endodontic NiTi rotary instruments. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(16):2523.
  12. Serefoglu B, Miçooğulları Kurt S, Kaval ME, et al. Cyclic fatigue resistance of multiused reciproc blue instruments during retreatment procedure. J Endod 2020;46(2):277–282. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.10.024.
  13. Generali L, Puddu P, Borghi A, et al. Mechanical properties and metallurgical features of new and ex vivo used Reciproc blue and Reciproc. Int Endod J 2020;53(2):250–264. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13214.
  14. Pedullà E, Plotino G, Grande NM, et al. Influence of rotational speed on the cyclic fatigue of Mtwo instruments. Int Endod J 2014;47(6): 514–519. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12178.
  15. Yılmaz K, Uslu G, Gündoğar M, et al. Cyclic fatigue resistances of several nickel–titanium glide path rotary and reciprocating instruments at body temperature. Int Endod J 2018;51(8):924–930. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12901.
  16. Gambarini G, Miccoli G, Seracchiani M, et al. Fatigue resistance of new and used nickel–titanium rotary instruments: a comparative study. Clin Ter 2018;169(3):e96–e101.
  17. Plotino G, Grande NM, Sorci E, et al. A comparison of cyclic fatigue between used and new Mtwo Ni–Ti rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2006;39(9):716–723. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01142.x.
  18. Staffoli S, Grande NM, Plotino G, et al. Influence of environmental temperature, heat-treatment and design on the cyclic fatigue resistance of three generations of a single-file nickel–titanium rotary instrument. Odontology 2019;107(3):301–307. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-018-0399-5.
  19. lnaghy A, Elsaka S. Cyclic fatigue resistance of XP-endo Shaper compared with different nickel–titanium alloy instruments. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22(3):1433–1437. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2245-5.
  20. Miccoli G, Gaimari G, Seracchiani M, et al. In vitro resistance to fracture of two nickel–titanium rotary instruments made with different thermal treatments. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2017;8(2):53–58. DOI: 10.11138/ads/2017.8.2.053.
  21. Gambarini G, Piasecki L, Miccoli G, et al. Classification and cyclic fatigue evaluation of new kinematics for endodontic instruments. Aust Endod J 2019;45(2):154–162. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12294.
  22. Chi CW, Lai EH, Liu CY, et al. Influence of heat treatment on cyclic fatigue and cutting efficiency of ProTaper universal F2 instruments. J Dent Sci 2017;12(1):21–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2016.06.001.
  23. Özyürek T, Uslu G, Gündoğar M, et al. Comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance and bending properties of two reciprocating nickel–titanium glide path files. Int Endod J 2018;51(9):1047–1052. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12911.
  24. Özyürek T, Uslu G, İnan U. A comparison of the cyclic fatigue resistance of used and new glide path files. J Endod 2017;43(3):477–480. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.044.
  25. Di Nardo D, Galli M, Morese A, et al. A comparative study of mechanical resistance of two reciprocating files. J Clin Exp Dent 2019;11(3):e231–e235. DOI: 10.4317/jced.55487.
  26. Plotino G, Testarelli L, Al-Sudani D, et al. Fatigue resistance of rotary instruments manufactured using different nickel–titanium alloys: a comparative study. Odontology 2014;102(1):31–35. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-012-0088-8.
  27. Vadhana S, SaravanaKarthikeyan B, Nandini S, et al. Cyclic fatigue resistance of RaCe and Mtwo rotary files in continuous rotation and reciprocating motion. J Endod 2014;40(7):995–999. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.12.010.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.