Premium
A comparison of stainless steel Flexofiles and nickel‐titanium NiTiFlex files during the shaping of simulated canals
Author(s) -
BISHOP K.,
DUMMER P. M. H.
Publication year - 1997
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/j.1365-2591.1997.tb01095.x
Subject(s) - nickel titanium , materials science , point (geometry) , curvature , software , position (finance) , dental instruments , file size , mathematics , computer science , dentistry , composite material , geometry , statistics , medicine , finance , economics , shape memory alloy , programming language
Summary The aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of stainless steel Flexofiles and nickel‐titanium NiTiFlex files during the preparation of simulated canals in resin blocks. A total of 80 canals with various angles and position of curvature were prepared by one operator using either Flexofiles or NiTiFlex files in a modified double‐flared technique with balanced force method of instrument manipulation. Canal shape was assessed at two stages during the procedure, after apical enlargement to size 30 and subsequently at size 45. Pre‐ and post‐operative images of the canals, were taken with a video camera and stored and manipulated in a computer with image analysis software. The presence of canal aberrations and the amount of material removed as a result of preparation were determined from composite images of superimposed pre‐ and post‐operative views. Canal preparation using NiTiFlex files was significantly quicker (P<0.0001) up to size 30. More instrument failures occurred with Flexofiles (12) compared to NiTiFlex files (7) but there were no statistically significant differences between file type, instrument size or canal shape. Flexofiles created significantly more zips, perforations and ledges; there were no differences in terms of danger zones. Overall, canals prepared with Flexofiles were significantly wider because more material was removed from the outer aspect of the curve at the end‐point of preparation and from the inner aspect of the curve at the apex. Under the conditions of this study, preparation with NiTiFlex files was more effective and produced more appropriate canal shapes than Flexofiles.