AIM: To evaluate the bending, buckling and torsional resistance of ProGlider (PG) (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), R-Pilot (RP) (VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne Gold Glider (WOGG) (Dentsply Sirona). METHODOLOGY: Ninety instruments were used: 30 PG (size 0.16, .02v taper), 30 RP (size 0.125, .04 taper) and 30 WOGG (size 0.15, .02v taper). The bending resistance test was performed on 10 randomly selected instruments of each system according to ISO 3630-1 specifications. For the buckling resistance test, a loading was applied in the axial direction of each instrument using a universal test machine, with a 20 N cell and 15 mm min-1 speed, in the axial direction. When a lateral elastic displacement of 1 mm occurred, the force was registered. The torsional resistance test was performed according to ISO 3630-1 specifications. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way anova and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: WOGG had the lowest bending resistance, whilst RP had the highest bending resistance (P < 0.05). RP also had the highest buckling resistance, and WOGG had the lowest (P < 0.05). PG had intermediate results regarding bending and buckling resistance, with significant differences to RP and WOGG (P < 0.05). RP had the highest torsional strength and the lowest angular deflection when compared to PG and WOGG (P < 0.05). No differences in the torsional strength and angular deflection were observed between WOGG and PG (P> 0.05). CONCLUSION: The glide path instruments had different behaviours in term of bending, buckling and torsional resistance.
AIM: To evaluate the bending, buckling and torsional resistance of ProGlider (PG) (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), R-Pilot (RP) (VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne Gold Glider (WOGG) (Dentsply Sirona). METHODOLOGY: Ninety instruments were used: 30 PG (size 0.16, .02v taper), 30 RP (size 0.125, .04 taper) and 30 WOGG (size 0.15, .02v taper). The bending resistance test was performed on 10 randomly selected instruments of each system according to ISO 3630-1 specifications. For the buckling resistance test, a loading was applied in the axial direction of each instrument using a universal test machine, with a 20 N cell and 15 mm min-1 speed, in the axial direction. When a lateral elastic displacement of 1 mm occurred, the force was registered. The torsional resistance test was performed according to ISO 3630-1 specifications. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way anova and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls test (P < 0.05). RESULTS:WOGG had the lowest bending resistance, whilst RP had the highest bending resistance (P < 0.05). RP also had the highest buckling resistance, and WOGG had the lowest (P < 0.05). PG had intermediate results regarding bending and buckling resistance, with significant differences to RP and WOGG (P < 0.05). RP had the highest torsional strength and the lowest angular deflection when compared to PG and WOGG (P < 0.05). No differences in the torsional strength and angular deflection were observed between WOGG and PG (P> 0.05). CONCLUSION: The glide path instruments had different behaviours in term of bending, buckling and torsional resistance.
Authors: Jorge N R Martins; Emmanuel J N L Silva; Duarte Marques; Sofia Arantes-Oliveira; António Ginjeira; João Caramês; Francisco M Braz Fernandes; Marco A Versiani Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 3.748
Authors: Jorge N R Martins; Duarte Marques; Isabel Vasconcelos; Sofia Arantes-Oliveira; João Caramês; Francisco Manuel Braz Fernandes Journal: Dent J (Basel) Date: 2022-02-17