4.2 Article

In vitro comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of two rotary single-file endodontic systems: OneCurve versus OneShape

Journal

ODONTOLOGY
Volume 107, Issue 2, Pages 196-201

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10266-018-0390-1

Keywords

Continuous rotation; Cyclic fatigue; Nickel-titanium; Single-file system; Scanning electron microscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the difference in cyclic fatigue resistance between OneCurve (OC) and OneShape (OS) endodontic single-file NiTi systems in a severely curved artificial canal. After sample size calculation (=0.01; =0.20; sigma=20.0; =20.0), 25 OC and 25 OS files were used. An artificial canal with 60 degrees angle and 5-mm radius of curvature was milled in a stainless-steel block reproducing the size and taper of the files used. The test device was electrically heated to maintain the environmental temperature at 37 degrees C. All files were rotated until fracture; the time to failure was recorded and the number of cycles to fracture (NCF) calculated. The length of the fractured fragments was measured too. Fractographic examination and cross-sectional area calculation were performed by scanning electron microscopy analysis (SEM). Data were statistically analyzed using an independent sample t test. The significance level was set at 0.01. Statistical analysis showed that OC files exhibited significantly greater cyclic fatigue resistance than OS (p<0.001), with 721 +/- 89 NCF and 301 +/- 38 NCF, respectively. No significant difference was found in the length of the fractured fragments (p>0.01). SEM fractographic analysis confirmed that all the scanned samples separated due to cyclic fatigue. Within the limitations of the present study, OC endodontic instruments resisted to cyclic fatigue better than OS. The improved mechanical resistance of OC could be related to new NiTi alloy used for their manufacturing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available