Premium
Torsional resistance of XP‐endo Shaper at body temperature compared with several nickel‐titanium rotary instruments
Author(s) -
Elnaghy A. M.,
Elsaka S. E.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1111/iej.12815
Subject(s) - nickel titanium , nickel , materials science , titanium , metallurgy , shape memory alloy
Aim To compare the torsional resistance of XP ‐endo Shaper ( XPS ; size 30, .01 taper, FKG Dentaire, La Chaux‐de‐Fonds, Switzerland) instruments at body temperature with TRUS hape ( TRS ; size 30, .06 taper, Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK , USA ), ProFile Vortex ( PV ; size 30, .04 taper, Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties) and FlexMaster ( FM ; size 30, .04 taper, VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany) nickel‐titanium rotary instruments. Methodology A metal block with a square‐shaped mould (5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm) was positioned inside a glass container. Five millimetres of the tip of each instrument was held inside the metal block by filling the mould with a resin composite. The instruments were tested for torsional resistance in saline solution at 37 °C. Data were analysed using one‐way analysis of variance ( anova ) and Tukey post hoc tests. The significance level was set at P < 0.05. Results FM had the greatest torsional resistance amongst the instruments tested ( P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between FM and PV instruments ( P = 0.211). The ranking for torsional resistance values was: FM > PV > TRS > XPS . Conclusions FlexMaster and ProFile Vortex instruments were more resistant to torsional stress compared with TRUS hape and XP ‐endo Shaper instruments. The manufacturing process used to produce XP ‐endo Shaper instruments did not enhance their resistance to torsional stress as compared with the other instruments.