Design, metallurgical features, mechanical performance and canal preparation of six reciprocating instruments
Aim To compare six reciprocating instruments regarding their geometric design, metallurgical characteristics, mechanical behaviour and ability to prepare root canals. Methodology A total of 246 new 25‐mm NiTi instruments (41 per group) from six reciprocating systems (Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, One Fil...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | International endodontic journal 2021-09, Vol.54 (9), p.1623-1637 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1637 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 1623 |
| container_title | International endodontic journal |
| container_volume | 54 |
| creator | Martins, J. N. R. Silva, E. J. N. L. Marques, D. Belladonna, F. Simões‐Carvalho, M. Vieira, V. T. L. Antunes, H. S. Fernandes, F. M. B. Versiani, M. A. |
| description | Aim
To compare six reciprocating instruments regarding their geometric design, metallurgical characteristics, mechanical behaviour and ability to prepare root canals.
Methodology
A total of 246 new 25‐mm NiTi instruments (41 per group) from six reciprocating systems (Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, One Files, One Files Blue, Reverso Silver, and WaveOne Gold) were evaluated throughout a multimethod approach regarding their design using stereomicroscopy (number of blades and helix angle) and scanning electron microscopy (blades symmetry, cross section and surface finishing), nickel‐titanium composition, phase transformation temperatures, mechanical performance (cyclic fatigue, torsional and bending resistance) and unprepared canal surface area on anatomically matched mandibular molars assessed by micro‐CT. One‐way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s or Mood's median tests were selected depending on sample distribution with significance level set at 5%.
Results
The instruments had similarities regarding their metal composition and unprepared canal area, whilst differences in phase transformation temperatures and geometric design (number of blades, surface finishing and tip geometry) were observed. Overall, no difference was observed regarding the maximum torque values (P > 0.05), whilst One Files (72 s) and One Files Blue (414 s) had the shortest and longest times to fracture, respectively (P 0.05), which were significantly lower than Reciproc Blue (492°), One Files Blue (456°) and WaveOne Gold (492°; P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/iej.13529 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2510244599</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2559700715</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4199-1e46774d64b1bd66a70218cda7317e1f2f5031fdfb916dd8760be52cb149ac563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtLxTAQhYMoen0s_ANScKNgNZM2abMU3yK40XVJ08k1lza9Ji3qvzf1qgvB2QwcPg5z5hCyD_QU4pxZXJxCxplcIzPIBE8Zl7BOZhTyLGVlybfIdggLSimnGWySrSwrmeQgZqS7xGDn7iTpcFBtO_q51apNDKph9BgmXb8o9yUu0Zved8ppTJRrEq3cpHpcKq8G27ukN0mw74lHbZe-11F088S6MPixQzeEXbJhVBtw73vvkOfrq6eL2_Th8ebu4vwh1TlImQLmoijyRuQ11I0QqqAMSt2oIoMCwTAz5TCNqSWIpikLQWvkTNeQS6W5yHbI0co3XvE6YhiqzgaNbasc9mOoGAfK8pxLGdHDP-iiH30MNlFcFpQWwCN1vKK070PwaKqlt53yHxXQauqgih1UXx1E9uDbcaw7bH7Jn6dH4GwFvNkWP_53qu6u7leWnz6HkTg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2559700715</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Design, metallurgical features, mechanical performance and canal preparation of six reciprocating instruments</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Martins, J. N. R. ; Silva, E. J. N. L. ; Marques, D. ; Belladonna, F. ; Simões‐Carvalho, M. ; Vieira, V. T. L. ; Antunes, H. S. ; Fernandes, F. M. B. ; Versiani, M. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Martins, J. N. R. ; Silva, E. J. N. L. ; Marques, D. ; Belladonna, F. ; Simões‐Carvalho, M. ; Vieira, V. T. L. ; Antunes, H. S. ; Fernandes, F. M. B. ; Versiani, M. A.</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
To compare six reciprocating instruments regarding their geometric design, metallurgical characteristics, mechanical behaviour and ability to prepare root canals.
Methodology
A total of 246 new 25‐mm NiTi instruments (41 per group) from six reciprocating systems (Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, One Files, One Files Blue, Reverso Silver, and WaveOne Gold) were evaluated throughout a multimethod approach regarding their design using stereomicroscopy (number of blades and helix angle) and scanning electron microscopy (blades symmetry, cross section and surface finishing), nickel‐titanium composition, phase transformation temperatures, mechanical performance (cyclic fatigue, torsional and bending resistance) and unprepared canal surface area on anatomically matched mandibular molars assessed by micro‐CT. One‐way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s or Mood's median tests were selected depending on sample distribution with significance level set at 5%.
Results
The instruments had similarities regarding their metal composition and unprepared canal area, whilst differences in phase transformation temperatures and geometric design (number of blades, surface finishing and tip geometry) were observed. Overall, no difference was observed regarding the maximum torque values (P > 0.05), whilst One Files (72 s) and One Files Blue (414 s) had the shortest and longest times to fracture, respectively (P < 0.05). Similar angles of rotation were observed in Reciproc (310°), One Files (285°) and Reverso Silver (318°) instruments (P > 0.05), which were significantly lower than Reciproc Blue (492°), One Files Blue (456°) and WaveOne Gold (492°; P < 0.05). Maximum bending load demonstrated that Reciproc Blue (201.3 gf) was significantly more flexible that the other instruments (P < 0.05).
Conclusion
Although there were similarities in metal composition and percentage of unprepared canal surface, the instruments had differences in the overall geometric design, phase transformation temperatures and in the four mechanical resistance parameters (time to fracture, maximum torque, angle of rotation and maximum bending load).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0143-2885</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2591</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/iej.13529</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33829516</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>bending load ; cyclic fatigue ; Dental equipment ; Dentistry ; differential scanning calorimetry ; Endodontics ; Mechanical properties ; Metals ; micro‐CT ; Molars ; Nickel ; reciprocation ; Root canals ; Scanning electron microscopy ; Silver ; Titanium ; torsional strength</subject><ispartof>International endodontic journal, 2021-09, Vol.54 (9), p.1623-1637</ispartof><rights>2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4199-1e46774d64b1bd66a70218cda7317e1f2f5031fdfb916dd8760be52cb149ac563</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4199-1e46774d64b1bd66a70218cda7317e1f2f5031fdfb916dd8760be52cb149ac563</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6932-2038 ; 0000-0001-5277-9827 ; 0000-0001-9972-6861 ; 0000-0002-6445-8243 ; 0000-0003-3491-1374</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fiej.13529$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fiej.13529$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33829516$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Martins, J. N. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silva, E. J. N. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marques, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belladonna, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simões‐Carvalho, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vieira, V. T. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antunes, H. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fernandes, F. M. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Versiani, M. A.</creatorcontrib><title>Design, metallurgical features, mechanical performance and canal preparation of six reciprocating instruments</title><title>International endodontic journal</title><addtitle>Int Endod J</addtitle><description>Aim
To compare six reciprocating instruments regarding their geometric design, metallurgical characteristics, mechanical behaviour and ability to prepare root canals.
Methodology
A total of 246 new 25‐mm NiTi instruments (41 per group) from six reciprocating systems (Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, One Files, One Files Blue, Reverso Silver, and WaveOne Gold) were evaluated throughout a multimethod approach regarding their design using stereomicroscopy (number of blades and helix angle) and scanning electron microscopy (blades symmetry, cross section and surface finishing), nickel‐titanium composition, phase transformation temperatures, mechanical performance (cyclic fatigue, torsional and bending resistance) and unprepared canal surface area on anatomically matched mandibular molars assessed by micro‐CT. One‐way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s or Mood's median tests were selected depending on sample distribution with significance level set at 5%.
Results
The instruments had similarities regarding their metal composition and unprepared canal area, whilst differences in phase transformation temperatures and geometric design (number of blades, surface finishing and tip geometry) were observed. Overall, no difference was observed regarding the maximum torque values (P > 0.05), whilst One Files (72 s) and One Files Blue (414 s) had the shortest and longest times to fracture, respectively (P < 0.05). Similar angles of rotation were observed in Reciproc (310°), One Files (285°) and Reverso Silver (318°) instruments (P > 0.05), which were significantly lower than Reciproc Blue (492°), One Files Blue (456°) and WaveOne Gold (492°; P < 0.05). Maximum bending load demonstrated that Reciproc Blue (201.3 gf) was significantly more flexible that the other instruments (P < 0.05).
Conclusion
Although there were similarities in metal composition and percentage of unprepared canal surface, the instruments had differences in the overall geometric design, phase transformation temperatures and in the four mechanical resistance parameters (time to fracture, maximum torque, angle of rotation and maximum bending load).</description><subject>bending load</subject><subject>cyclic fatigue</subject><subject>Dental equipment</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>differential scanning calorimetry</subject><subject>Endodontics</subject><subject>Mechanical properties</subject><subject>Metals</subject><subject>micro‐CT</subject><subject>Molars</subject><subject>Nickel</subject><subject>reciprocation</subject><subject>Root canals</subject><subject>Scanning electron microscopy</subject><subject>Silver</subject><subject>Titanium</subject><subject>torsional strength</subject><issn>0143-2885</issn><issn>1365-2591</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kUtLxTAQhYMoen0s_ANScKNgNZM2abMU3yK40XVJ08k1lza9Ji3qvzf1qgvB2QwcPg5z5hCyD_QU4pxZXJxCxplcIzPIBE8Zl7BOZhTyLGVlybfIdggLSimnGWySrSwrmeQgZqS7xGDn7iTpcFBtO_q51apNDKph9BgmXb8o9yUu0Zved8ppTJRrEq3cpHpcKq8G27ukN0mw74lHbZe-11F088S6MPixQzeEXbJhVBtw73vvkOfrq6eL2_Th8ebu4vwh1TlImQLmoijyRuQ11I0QqqAMSt2oIoMCwTAz5TCNqSWIpikLQWvkTNeQS6W5yHbI0co3XvE6YhiqzgaNbasc9mOoGAfK8pxLGdHDP-iiH30MNlFcFpQWwCN1vKK070PwaKqlt53yHxXQauqgih1UXx1E9uDbcaw7bH7Jn6dH4GwFvNkWP_53qu6u7leWnz6HkTg</recordid><startdate>202109</startdate><enddate>202109</enddate><creator>Martins, J. N. R.</creator><creator>Silva, E. J. N. L.</creator><creator>Marques, D.</creator><creator>Belladonna, F.</creator><creator>Simões‐Carvalho, M.</creator><creator>Vieira, V. T. L.</creator><creator>Antunes, H. S.</creator><creator>Fernandes, F. M. B.</creator><creator>Versiani, M. A.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6932-2038</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5277-9827</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9972-6861</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6445-8243</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3491-1374</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202109</creationdate><title>Design, metallurgical features, mechanical performance and canal preparation of six reciprocating instruments</title><author>Martins, J. N. R. ; Silva, E. J. N. L. ; Marques, D. ; Belladonna, F. ; Simões‐Carvalho, M. ; Vieira, V. T. L. ; Antunes, H. S. ; Fernandes, F. M. B. ; Versiani, M. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4199-1e46774d64b1bd66a70218cda7317e1f2f5031fdfb916dd8760be52cb149ac563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>bending load</topic><topic>cyclic fatigue</topic><topic>Dental equipment</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>differential scanning calorimetry</topic><topic>Endodontics</topic><topic>Mechanical properties</topic><topic>Metals</topic><topic>micro‐CT</topic><topic>Molars</topic><topic>Nickel</topic><topic>reciprocation</topic><topic>Root canals</topic><topic>Scanning electron microscopy</topic><topic>Silver</topic><topic>Titanium</topic><topic>torsional strength</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Martins, J. N. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Silva, E. J. N. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marques, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belladonna, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simões‐Carvalho, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vieira, V. T. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Antunes, H. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fernandes, F. M. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Versiani, M. A.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International endodontic journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Martins, J. N. R.</au><au>Silva, E. J. N. L.</au><au>Marques, D.</au><au>Belladonna, F.</au><au>Simões‐Carvalho, M.</au><au>Vieira, V. T. L.</au><au>Antunes, H. S.</au><au>Fernandes, F. M. B.</au><au>Versiani, M. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Design, metallurgical features, mechanical performance and canal preparation of six reciprocating instruments</atitle><jtitle>International endodontic journal</jtitle><addtitle>Int Endod J</addtitle><date>2021-09</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1623</spage><epage>1637</epage><pages>1623-1637</pages><issn>0143-2885</issn><eissn>1365-2591</eissn><abstract>Aim
To compare six reciprocating instruments regarding their geometric design, metallurgical characteristics, mechanical behaviour and ability to prepare root canals.
Methodology
A total of 246 new 25‐mm NiTi instruments (41 per group) from six reciprocating systems (Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, One Files, One Files Blue, Reverso Silver, and WaveOne Gold) were evaluated throughout a multimethod approach regarding their design using stereomicroscopy (number of blades and helix angle) and scanning electron microscopy (blades symmetry, cross section and surface finishing), nickel‐titanium composition, phase transformation temperatures, mechanical performance (cyclic fatigue, torsional and bending resistance) and unprepared canal surface area on anatomically matched mandibular molars assessed by micro‐CT. One‐way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s or Mood's median tests were selected depending on sample distribution with significance level set at 5%.
Results
The instruments had similarities regarding their metal composition and unprepared canal area, whilst differences in phase transformation temperatures and geometric design (number of blades, surface finishing and tip geometry) were observed. Overall, no difference was observed regarding the maximum torque values (P > 0.05), whilst One Files (72 s) and One Files Blue (414 s) had the shortest and longest times to fracture, respectively (P < 0.05). Similar angles of rotation were observed in Reciproc (310°), One Files (285°) and Reverso Silver (318°) instruments (P > 0.05), which were significantly lower than Reciproc Blue (492°), One Files Blue (456°) and WaveOne Gold (492°; P < 0.05). Maximum bending load demonstrated that Reciproc Blue (201.3 gf) was significantly more flexible that the other instruments (P < 0.05).
Conclusion
Although there were similarities in metal composition and percentage of unprepared canal surface, the instruments had differences in the overall geometric design, phase transformation temperatures and in the four mechanical resistance parameters (time to fracture, maximum torque, angle of rotation and maximum bending load).</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>33829516</pmid><doi>10.1111/iej.13529</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6932-2038</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5277-9827</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9972-6861</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6445-8243</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3491-1374</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0143-2885 |
| ispartof | International endodontic journal, 2021-09, Vol.54 (9), p.1623-1637 |
| issn | 0143-2885 1365-2591 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2510244599 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | bending load cyclic fatigue Dental equipment Dentistry differential scanning calorimetry Endodontics Mechanical properties Metals micro‐CT Molars Nickel reciprocation Root canals Scanning electron microscopy Silver Titanium torsional strength |
| title | Design, metallurgical features, mechanical performance and canal preparation of six reciprocating instruments |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T20%3A44%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Design,%20metallurgical%20features,%20mechanical%20performance%20and%20canal%20preparation%20of%20six%20reciprocating%20instruments&rft.jtitle=International%20endodontic%20journal&rft.au=Martins,%20J.%20N.%20R.&rft.date=2021-09&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1623&rft.epage=1637&rft.pages=1623-1637&rft.issn=0143-2885&rft.eissn=1365-2591&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/iej.13529&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2559700715%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2559700715&rft_id=info:pmid/33829516&rfr_iscdi=true |