Premium
A comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance in reciprocating and rotary nickel‐titanium instruments
Author(s) -
Wan Jeffrey,
Rasimick Brian J.,
Musikant Barry L.,
Deutsch Allan S.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
australian endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.703
H-Index - 34
eISSN - 1747-4477
pISSN - 1329-1947
DOI - 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2010.00222.x
Subject(s) - reciprocating motion , cyclic stress , nickel titanium , materials science , statistical analysis , dental instruments , significant difference , curvature , metallurgy , mathematics , orthodontics , statistics , medicine , engineering , mechanical engineering , geometry , gas compressor , shape memory alloy
The cyclic fatigue resistance of four nickel‐titanium endodontic instruments was compared. K3, ProFile and GT Series X rotary instruments were examined along with SafeSiders reciprocating instruments. 30/0.04 instruments at 25 mm length were compared. Cyclic fatigue testing was conducted by operating instruments in artificially constructed stainless steel canals with 30° and 45° angles of curvature and 5 mm and 7.5 mm radii of curvature. The time and cycles to failure were recorded for 192 samples. Statistical analysis was performed with three‐way anova and the Student‐Neuman‐Keuls multiple comparisons testing. With a 5 min maximum running time, no SafeSiders samples were observed to separate. ProFile and GT Series X instruments were found to be significantly more resistant than K3 instruments ( P < 0.001) for all experiment groups. There was no statistical difference between ProFile and GT Series X files ( P < 0.582).