Murilo P Alcalde1, Mario Tanomaru-Filho2, Clovis M Bramante1, Marco Antonio H Duarte1, Juliane Maria Guerreiro-Tanomaru2, Jader Camilo-Pinto2, Marcus Vinicius Reis Só3, Rodrigo Ricci Vivan4. 1. Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Araraquara Dental School, São Paulo State University, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. 4. Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: rodrigo.vivan@fob.usp.br.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cyclic and torsional fatigue resistance of the following reciprocating single-file systems: ProDesign R 25.06 (Easy Equipamentos Odontológicos, Belo Horizonte, Brazil), Reciproc R25 (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany), and Unicone L25 (Medin SA, Nové Město in Moravě, Czech Republic). METHODS: Sixty instruments of the ProDesign R, Reciproc R25, and Unicone L25 systems (n = 20) were used. Cyclic fatigue resistance was tested measuring the time to failure in an artificial stainless steel canal with a 60° angle and a 5-mm radius of curvature (n = 10). Torque and angle of rotation at failure of new instruments (n = 10) in the 3 mm from the tip portion were measured during torsional testing according to ISO 3630-1. The fractured surface of each fragment was examined by scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests, and the level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: The cyclic fatigue resistance values of ProDesign R 25.06 were significantly higher than the other groups (P < .05). Reciproc R25 showed higher fatigue resistance than Unicone L25 (P < .05). In relation to the torsional test, the ProDesign R 25.06 and Unicone L25 systems showed higher angular rotation until fracture than Reciproc R25 (P < .05). However, Reciproc R25 and Unicone L25 showed higher torque load than ProDesign R 25.06 (P < .05). Scanning electron microscopic analysis showed similar and typical features of cyclic and torsional failure for all instruments tested. CONCLUSIONS: ProDesign R presented the highest cyclic fatigue resistance and angular rotation to failure compared with Reciproc and Unicone. However, Reciproc showed higher torsional strength to failure.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cyclic and torsional fatigue resistance of the following reciprocating single-file systems: ProDesign R 25.06 (Easy Equipamentos Odontológicos, Belo Horizonte, Brazil), Reciproc R25 (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany), and UniconeL25 (Medin SA, Nové Město in Moravě, Czech Republic). METHODS: Sixty instruments of the ProDesign R, Reciproc R25, and UniconeL25 systems (n = 20) were used. Cyclic fatigue resistance was tested measuring the time to failure in an artificial stainless steel canal with a 60° angle and a 5-mm radius of curvature (n = 10). Torque and angle of rotation at failure of new instruments (n = 10) in the 3 mm from the tip portion were measured during torsional testing according to ISO 3630-1. The fractured surface of each fragment was examined by scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests, and the level of significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: The cyclic fatigue resistance values of ProDesign R 25.06 were significantly higher than the other groups (P < .05). Reciproc R25 showed higher fatigue resistance than UniconeL25 (P < .05). In relation to the torsional test, the ProDesign R 25.06 and UniconeL25 systems showed higher angular rotation until fracture than Reciproc R25 (P < .05). However, Reciproc R25 and UniconeL25 showed higher torque load than ProDesign R 25.06 (P < .05). Scanning electron microscopic analysis showed similar and typical features of cyclic and torsional failure for all instruments tested. CONCLUSIONS: ProDesign R presented the highest cyclic fatigue resistance and angular rotation to failure compared with Reciproc and Unicone. However, Reciproc showed higher torsional strength to failure.
Authors: Murilo Priori Alcalde; Marco Antonio Hungaro Duarte; Clovis Monteiro Bramante; Bruno Carvalho de Vasconselos; Mario Tanomaru-Filho; Juliane Maria Guerreiro-Tanomaru; Jader Camilo Pinto; Marcus Vinicius Reis Só; Rodrigo Ricci Vivan Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2017-12-09 Impact factor: 3.573