IN VITRO COMPARISON OF CYCLIC FATIGUE RESISTANCE OF PROTAPER NEXT AND TRUSHAPE 3D CONFORMING FILE NICKEL-TITANIUM ROTARY INSTRUMENTS

Abstract

Abstract Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of all instruments of the ProTaper Next (PTN) and TRUShape 3D Conforming File (TRS) systems. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 nickel–titanium rotary instruments were divided into eight groups: PTN X1, PTN X2, PTN X3, PTN X4, TRS 20/.06v, TRS 25/.06v, TRS 30/.06v and TRS 40/.06v. Each group had 15 instruments. All the instruments were tested for cyclic fatigue resistance in stainless steel artificial canals with 5 mm radius and 60° angle of curvature. They were rotated until they got fractured, and the test was performed in a saline solution at 35°C (±2). The number of cycles to fracture (NCF) was calculated by measuring the time to fracture. The NCF data were analysed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis H and post hoc Tamhane T2 tests for multiple comparisons (α-level = 0.05). Results: The PTN X1 group had the highest NCF (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the X2 and TRS 25/.06 groups (P > 0.05). However, there was a statistical difference between the other groups of similar sizes (X1–TRS 20/.06v) (X3–TRS 30/.06v) (X4–TRS 40/.06v) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, most of the PTN instruments (X1, X3, and X4) have better cyclic fatigue resistance than do TRS instruments (20/.06, 30/.06 and 40/.06) even if they were manufactured with older technology. This result showed that the S-curve design increases the risk of fracture in instruments with large tapers and tip sizes. Keywords: cyclic fatigue resistance, S-curve design, TRUShape ProTaper Next ve TRUShape 3D Conforming File Nikel-Titanyum Döner Aletlerinin Döngüsel Yorulma Dirençlerinin İn Vitro Olarak Karşılaştırılması ÖZ Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı ProTaper Next (PTN) ve TRUShape 3D Conforming File (TRS) sistemlerindeki tüm döner aletlerin döngüsel yorulma dirençlerinin kıyaslanmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Toplam 120 nikel-titanyum döner alet 8 gruba bölündü: PTN X1, PTN X2, PTN X3, PTN X4, TRS 20/.06v, TRS 25/.06v, TRS 30/.06v and TRS 40/.06v. Her bir grupta 15 alet vardı. Tüm aletler 5 mm yarıçaplı ve 60 ° eğimli açıya sahip paslanmaz çelik yapay kanallarda döngüsel yorgunluk direnci açısından test edilmiştir. Aletler kırılana kadar döndürüldü ve test 35°C (±2) sıcaklıkta serum solüsyonu içinde gerçekleştirildi. Döngüsel Kırılma sayısı (DKS), kırılma zamanı ölçülerek hesaplandı. DKS verileri Kruskal–Wallis H testi ve post-hoc Tamhane T2 çoklu karşılaştırma testleri ile istatistiksel olarak analiz edildi (α-level = 0.05). Bulgular: PTN X1 grubu en yüksek DKS’ye sahipti (P < 0.05). PTN X2 and TRS 25/.06 grupları arasında istatistiksel açıdan bir fark yoktu (P > 0.05). Benzer boyutlara sahip diğer gruplar arasında ise istatistiksel olarak fark vardı (X1–TRS 20/.06v) (X3–TRS 30/.06v) (X4–TRS 40/.06v) (P < 0.05). Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sınırları dahilinde, PTN döner aletlerinin bir kısmı (X1, X3 ve X4) daha eski bir teknoloji ile üretilmiş olmalarına ragmen, TRS döner aletlerinden (20/.06, 30/.06 ve 40/.06) daha yüksek döngüsel yorulma direncine sahiptir. Bu sonuç, S-eğimli tasarımın özellikle büyük konik ve uç boyutlarına sahip döner aletlerde kırılma riskini arttırdığını göstermiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: döngüsel yorulma direnci, S-eğimli tasarım, TRUShape

Keywords

• TRUShape
• cyclic fatigue resistance
• S-curve design

IN VITRO COMPARISON OF CYCLIC FATIGUE RESISTANCE OF PROTAPER NEXT AND TRUSHAPE 3D CONFORMING FILE NICKEL-TITANIUM ROTARY INSTRUMENTS

Abstract

Abstract Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of all instruments of the ProTaper Next (PTN) and TRUShape 3D Conforming File (TRS) systems. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 nickel–titanium rotary instruments were divided into eight groups: PTN X1, PTN X2, PTN X3, PTN X4, TRS 20/.06v, TRS 25/.06v, TRS 30/.06v and TRS 40/.06v. Each group had 15 instruments. All the instruments were tested for cyclic fatigue resistance in stainless steel artificial canals with 5 mm radius and 60° angle of curvature. They were rotated until they got fractured, and the test was performed in a saline solution at 35°C (±2). The number of cycles to fracture (NCF) was calculated by measuring the time to fracture. The NCF data were analysed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis H and post hoc Tamhane T2 tests for multiple comparisons (α-level = 0.05). Results: The PTN X1 group had the highest NCF (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the X2 and TRS 25/.06 groups (P > 0.05). However, there was a statistical difference between the other groups of similar sizes (X1–TRS 20/.06v) (X3–TRS 30/.06v) (X4–TRS 40/.06v) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, most of the PTN instruments (X1, X3, and X4) have better cyclic fatigue resistance than do TRS instruments (20/.06, 30/.06 and 40/.06) even if they were manufactured with older technology. This result showed that the S-curve design increases the risk of fracture in instruments with large tapers and tip sizes. Keywords: cyclic fatigue resistance, S-curve design, TRUShape

Keywords

• cyclic fatigue resistance
• S-curve design

References

1. 1. Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988; 14:346-51.
2. 2. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod 2000; 26:161-5.
3. 3. Rodrigues E, De-Deus G, Souza E, Silva EJ. Safe Mechanical Preparation with Reciprocation Movement without Glide Path Creation: Result from a Pool of 673 Root Canals. Braz Dent J 2016; 27:22-7.
4. 4. Shen Y, Cheung GS-p, Bian Z, Peng B. Comparison of defects in ProFile and ProTaper systems after clinical use. J Endod 2006; 32:61-5.
5. 5. Cheung GS. Instrument fracture: mechanisms, removal of fragments, and clinical outcomes. Endod Topics 2007; 16:1-26.
6. 6. Uygun AD, Kol E, Topcu M, Seckin F, Ersoy I, Tanriver M. Variations in cyclic fatigue resistance among ProTaper Gold, ProTaper Next and ProTaper Universal instruments at different levels. Int Endod J 2016; 49:494-9.
7. 7. Arslan H, Alsancak M, Doğanay E, Karataş E, Davut Çapar I, Ertas H. Cyclic fatigue analysis of R eciproc R 25® instruments with different kinematics. Aust Endod J 2016; 42:22-4.
8. 8. Kim H-C, Kwak S-W, Cheung GS-P, Ko D-H, Chung S-M, Lee W. Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel-titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: Reciproc versus WaveOne. J Endod 2012; 38:541-4.

9. 9. Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. The shaping movement: fifth-generation technology. Dent Today 2013; 32:94, 96-9.
10. 10. Pérez-Higueras JJ, Arias A, José C, Peters OA. Differences in cyclic fatigue resistance between ProTaper Next and ProTaper Universal instruments at different levels. J Endod 2014; 40:1477-81.
11. 11. Zan R, Hubbezoğlu I, Akpınar KE, Kutlu G, Mutlu Z. Flexural strenght of root dentin after root canal preparation using One-shape new generation, K3XF, Twisted File Adaptive, and ProTaper Next instrumentation systems. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni 2016; 26:239-44.
12. 12. Peters OA, Arias A, Paqué F. A micro–computed tomographic assessment of root canal preparation with a novel instrument, TRUShape, in mesial roots of mandibular molars. J Endod 2015; 41:1545-50.
13. 13. Bortoluzzi EA, Carlon Jr D, Meghil MM, El-Awady AR, Niu L, Bergeron BE, Susin L, Cutler CW, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Efficacy of 3D conforming nickel titanium rotary instruments in eliminating canal wall bacteria from oval-shaped root canals. J Dent 2015; 43:597-604.
14. 14. de Vasconcelos RA, Murphy S, Carvalho CAT, Govindjee RG, Govindjee S, Peters OA. Evidence for reduced fatigue resistance of contemporary rotary instruments exposed to body temperature. J Endod 2016; 42:782-7.
15. 15. Kaval ME, Capar ID, Ertas H, Sen BH. Comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of four different nickel-titanium rotary files with different cross-sectional designs and alloy properties. Clin Oral Investig 2017; 21:1527-30.
16. 16. Elnaghy A, Elsaka S. Laboratory comparison of the mechanical properties of TRUS hape with several nickel‐titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2017; 50:805-12.
17. 17. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes Jr DL. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 1997; 23:77-85.
18. 18. Uygun AD, Gündoğdu EC, Arslan H, Ersoy I. Efficacy of XP‐endo finisher and TRUS hape 3D conforming file compared to conventional and ultrasonic irrigation in removing calcium hydroxide. Aust Endod J 2017; 43:89-93.
19. 19. Plotino G, Grande NM, Bellido MM, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Influence of temperature on cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Universal rotary files. J Endod 2017; 43:200-2.
20. 20. Elnaghy A, Elsaka S. Cyclic fatigue resistance of XP-endo Shaper compared with different nickel-titanium alloy instruments. Clin Oral Investig 2018; 22:1433-7.
21. 21. Shen Y, Hieawy A, Huang X, Wang Z-j, Maezono H, Haapasalo M. Fatigue resistance of a 3-dimensional conforming nickel-titanium rotary instrument in double curvatures. J Endod 2016; 42:961-4.
22. 22. Ye J, Gao Y. Metallurgical characterization of M-Wire nickel-titanium shape memory alloy used for endodontic rotary instruments during low-cycle fatigue. J Endod 2012; 38:105-7.
23. 23. Govindjee R, Govindjee S. Thermal phase transformations in commercial dental files. Structural Engineering Mechanics and Materials. Report No. UCB/SEMM-2015/02, 2015. Available at:http://faculty.ce.berkeley.edu/sanjay/ucb_semm_2015_02.pdf. Accessed July 14,2021.