| Literature DB >> 31828110 |
Soram Oh1, Kee-Yeon Kum2, Kwon Cho3, Soo-Hyuk Lee4, Seung-Hyun You4, Jonggun Go4, Bong-Ki Jeon4, Sang-Woo Kim4, Tae-Hwan Kim4, Ji-Hyun Jang1,5, Hiran Perinpanayagam6, Jin-Woo Kim7, Seok Woo Chang1,5.
Abstract
Nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary files have enabled efficient root canal preparations that maintain the canal center with fewer aberrations compared to hand files. However, NiTi rotary files are susceptible to fracture, which can thereby compromise root canal treatment. Therefore, NiTi files have been developed to enhance fracture resistance by modifying design and thermal treatment. The objective of this study was to compare the torsional fatigue resistance and bending resistance of NiTi files manufactured from different alloys and treatments. ProTaper NEXT X2 (PTN; M-wire), V taper 2H (V2H; controlled memory wire), NRT (heat-treated), and One Shape (OS; conventional alloy) instruments of tip size #25 were compared. Torsional fatigue was evaluated by embedding the 3 mm tip of each instrument (N = 10/brand) in resin and the repetitive application of torsional stress (300 rpm, 1.0 N·cm) by an endodontic motor with autostop when the file fractured. The number of loading cycles to fracture was recorded and analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni's correction. Bending resistance of the instruments was tested using a cantilever bending test to the 3 mm point from the tip (N = 10/brand). The stress was measured when deflection of 3 mm was subjected and statistically analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's honest significance difference test (α = 0.05). V2H withstood the highest number of load applications during torsional fatigue testing (p < 0.05), followed by NRT, PTN, and OS, where the differences between NRT and PTN (p=0.035) and between PTN and OS (p=0.143) were not statistically significant. V2H showed the lowest bending stiffness, followed by NRT, PTN, and OS (p < 0.001). Thermal treatment of NiTi wire resulted in improved mechanical properties, and controlled memory wire provided improved flexibility and torsional fatigue resistance.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31828110 PMCID: PMC6881565 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6368958
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Test devices used in the present study. (a) Setup for torsional fatigue resistance test. (b) A NiTi rotary file was secured in a composite resin in which a torsional resistance test was performed. (c) Setup for cantilever bending test using a universal testing machine.
Results of torsional fatigue resistance tests (n = 10/group).
| Group | Minimum | Maximum | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| OS | 1 | 1 | 1 (0)a |
| PTN | 1 | 2 | 1.4 (0.55)a,b |
| NRT | 1 | 8 | 3.6 (2.88)b |
| V2H | 79 | 140 | 114.4 (22.22)c |
OS, One Shape; PTN, ProTaper NEXT; V2H, V taper 2H. Groups with different superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference.
Figure 2Scanning electron microscopy photographs of the fractured surface of NiTi files after the torsional fatigue resistance test. Fractured surfaces of the One Shape (a), ProTaper NEXT (b), NRT file (c), and V taper 2H (d) (original magnification, x200) showed circular abrasion marks and skewed dimples at the center of the rotation region. (e) Magnified view of upper box of (d) showing a crack line from the boundary to the central region (x500). (f) Magnified view of lower box of (d) showing circular abrasion marks at the periphery of the fractured surface (x1,000).
Figure 3Results from the bending resistance test. (a) Representative graph of bending moment (N·mm)-deflection (mm) curves obtained in the bending resistance test. (b) Bending moment of four different NiTi rotary files. Groups with different letters indicate a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). OS, One Shape; PTN, ProTaper NEXT; V2H, V taper 2H.
Figure 43 mm cross sections from tip of unused files. (a) One Shape; (b) ProTaper NEXT; (c) V taper 2H; (d) NRT. The inner white circle represents the central inner core for each instrument.
Cross-sectional area and inner core area at 3 mm cross sections from tip of the tested instruments.
| Group | Cross-sectional area ( | Inner core area ( |
|---|---|---|
| OS | 90,697 | 55,992 |
| PTN | 101,255 | 54,321 |
| V2H | 110,295 | 64,774 |
| NRT | 135,957 | 83,905 |
OS, One Shape; PTN, ProTaper NEXT; V2H, V taper 2H.
Figure 5Lateral surfaces of unused instruments. The angle between two red lines is a helical angle of the NiTi file. From top to bottom, V taper 2H, ProTaper NEXT, NRT, and One Shape.