Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 936
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 186-191

Cyclic fatigue comparison of different manufactured endodontic files

1 Ministry of Health, Jeddah Specialty Dental Center, Jeddah, KSA
2 Department of Endodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca, KSA
3 Department of Endodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, KSA
4 King Abdullah University for Science and Technology Health, Fakeeh Care, Jeddah, KSA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Khaled Ali Bukhari
North Obhur, P.O Box 23817-8678, Jeddah
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sej.sej_137_18

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of endodontic files of different manufacturers operated in disparate motions. Materials and Methods: Six different brands of nickel–titanium instruments, such as ProFile Vortex™, Vortex Blue™, Twisted File™, HyFlex™, WaveOne™, and S1™ all with a tip size ISO 25 with 0.06 taper, except for WaveOne™ tip size ISO 25 with 0.08 taper, were included in the study. Six groups of 20 rotary files from each system were tested for cyclic fatigue resistance. All files were rotated in a simulated root canal with a certain diameter, angle of curvature, and a radius of curvature of a specific cyclic fatigue testing device until fracture occurred. Time to fracture was recorded for each instrument in each group in seconds. The mean values and standard deviation were then calculated. Data were compared using repeated measures ANOVA for individual comparisons followed by Bonferroni's correction for multiple comparisons. Significance was set at the 95% confidence level. Results: Time of fracture had statistically significant differences among all groups tested (P < 0.5) except between Group 1 (PV) and Group 4 (HF) and between Group 2 (VB) and Group 3 (TF); there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.5). Thus, the S1 file offered a long life span, followed by WaveOne™, ProFile Vortex™, HyFlex™, Twisted Files™, and then Vortex Blue™. Conclusion: The reciprocating instruments (S1 and WaveOne™) had a higher cyclic fatigue resistance than all rotary files used in this study. However, the Profile Vortex (M-wire) and HyFlex (CM) showed better cyclic fatigue resistance than other rotating files in this study. Hence, the blue and R-phase heat treatments did not enhance the cyclic fatigue resistance for rotating instruments.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded257    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal