Saudi Endodontic Journal

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2019  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 186--191

Cyclic fatigue comparison of different manufactured endodontic files


Khaled Ali Bukhari1, Majed Abdullah Almalki2, Mohsen Hasan Daghestani1, Dania Fuad Bogari3, Mohamad Khalid Aljifan1, Yazeed Mohamad Alharbi1, Raif Rashad Marqoshi4 
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
KSA

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.


How to cite this article:
Bukhari KA, Almalki MA, Daghestani MH, Bogari DF, Aljifan MK, Alharbi YM, Marqoshi RR. Cyclic fatigue comparison of different manufactured endodontic files.Saudi Endod J 2019;9:186-191


How to cite this URL:
Bukhari KA, Almalki MA, Daghestani MH, Bogari DF, Aljifan MK, Alharbi YM, Marqoshi RR. Cyclic fatigue comparison of different manufactured endodontic files. Saudi Endod J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Sep 20 ];9:186-191
Available from: http://www.saudiendodj.com/article.asp?issn=1658-5984;year=2019;volume=9;issue=3;spage=186;epage=191;aulast=Bukhari;type=0