| Literature DB >> 27790257 |
Mohsen Aminsobhani1, Mohamad Saleh Khalatbari2, Naghmeh Meraji3, Abdollah Ghorbanzadeh3, Ehsan Sadri4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare several metallurgic properties of Neoniti instrument with four other commonly used endodontic rotary files. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Neoniti A1 (25/0.08), RaCe (25/0.06), Mtwo (25/0.06), Twisted file (25/0.06) and ProTaper Next X2 (25/0.06) were examined by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) before and after heat treatment at 500°C. X-ray diffraction (XRD) was also performed on the specimens. Furthermore, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and x-ray energy-dispersive spectrometric (EDS) analyses were carried out on randomly selected fractured files.Entities:
Keywords: Differential Scanning Calorimetry; Instrumentation; Nickel-Titanium; Root Canal Preparation; Scanning Electron Microscopy; Transition Temperatures; X-ray Diffraction
Year: 2016 PMID: 27790257 PMCID: PMC5069904 DOI: 10.22037/iej.2016.6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran Endod J ISSN: 1735-7497
Figure 1A) SEM images of fractured surfaces of evaluated files with 150× and 2000× magnification, B) SEM image of an Mtwo specimen revealing striation marks and micro-voids
Figure 2X-ray energy-dispersive spectrometric (EDS) results of evaluated files
Figure 3Differential scanning calorimetric (DSC) plots before and after heat treatment. Heating (lower) and cooling (upper) curves are shown
Transition temperatures for the files before heat treatment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 32.45 | 52.5 | -8.3 | -32 | 47 | 29.16 |
|
| 37.5 | 52.5 | 2.5 | -20.83 | 47.5 | 19.95 |
|
| 37.8 | 54.16 | 2 | -20.8 | 45.87 | 16.6 |
|
| 31.25 | 49 | 5.9 | -29.16 | 41.6 | 15 |
|
| 37.9 | 58.37 | 2.5 | -27.5 | 44.75 | 20.83 |
Transition temperatures for the files after heat treatment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| - | - | 10 | -8.3 | - | - |
|
| 37.5 | 52.5 | 2.5 | -20.83 | 47.5 | 19.95 |
|
| 37.8 | 54.16 | 2 | -20.8 | 45.87 | 16.6 |
|
| - | - | 28 | 8.3 | - | - |
|
| 12.5 | 23.6 | 22.5 | -8.3 | - | - |
Figure 4X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of the evaluated files