Cangül Keskin1, Uğur Inan2, Murat Demiral3, Ali Keleş2. 1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey. Electronic address: canglkarabulut@gmail.com. 2. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey. 3. Cekmekoy Oral and Dental Health Center, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc Blue R25 (VDW, Munich, Germany) with Reciproc R25 (VDW) and WaveOne Gold Primary (Denstply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). METHODS: Fifteen Reciproc Blue R25, 15 Reciproc R25, and 15 WaveOne Gold Primary instruments were collected and tested in a dynamic cyclic fatigue test device, which has an artificial canal with a 60° angle of curvature and a 5-mm radius of curvature. All instruments were operated until fracture occurred, and time to fracture (TF) and the lengths of the fractured fragments were recorded. The mean and standard deviations of TF and fragment length were calculated for each reciprocating system. TF data were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance and the Dunn test, whereas fractured fragment length data were subjected to 1-way analysis of variance (P < .05). RESULTS: Reciproc Blue R25 exhibited the highest cyclic fatigue resistance (P < .05). The cyclic fatigue resistance values of WaveOne Gold Primary were significantly higher than those of Reciproc R25 (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the mean length of the fractured fragments among the instruments (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Reciproc Blue R25 instruments had significantly higher cyclic fatigue resistance than WaveOne Gold and Reciproc R25 instruments.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc Blue R25 (VDW, Munich, Germany) with Reciproc R25 (VDW) and WaveOne Gold Primary (Denstply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). METHODS: Fifteen Reciproc Blue R25, 15 Reciproc R25, and 15 WaveOne Gold Primary instruments were collected and tested in a dynamic cyclic fatigue test device, which has an artificial canal with a 60° angle of curvature and a 5-mm radius of curvature. All instruments were operated until fracture occurred, and time to fracture (TF) and the lengths of the fractured fragments were recorded. The mean and standard deviations of TF and fragment length were calculated for each reciprocating system. TF data were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis 1-way analysis of variance and the Dunn test, whereas fractured fragment length data were subjected to 1-way analysis of variance (P < .05). RESULTS: Reciproc Blue R25 exhibited the highest cyclic fatigue resistance (P < .05). The cyclic fatigue resistance values of WaveOne Gold Primary were significantly higher than those of Reciproc R25 (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the mean length of the fractured fragments among the instruments (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Reciproc Blue R25 instruments had significantly higher cyclic fatigue resistance than WaveOne Gold and Reciproc R25 instruments.