Morphometric analysis and cyclic fatigue of instruments from a national brand endodontic file

• Autor(a) principal: Dias, Douglas Souza
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Outros Autores: Ribeiro, Guilherme Dias, Martuche, Ranna da Silva, Antunes, Henrique dos Santos, Vieira, Victor Talarico Leal, Silva, Emmanuel João Nogueira Leal da
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Odontologia
• Texto Completo: https://revista.aborj.org.br/index.php/rbo/article/view/864
• topic: DENTAL MEDICINE (DENTISTRY); Endodontic files; Stainless steel; Ciclic fatigue; MEDICINA DENTÁRIA (ODONTOLOGIA); Endodontia; Fadiga; Aço inoxidável

Objective: this study aimed to verify whether the K type endodontic instruments of Angelus (Brazil), CC Cord VDW (Germany), and Dentsply-Maillefer (Switzerland) meet the tolerance level established by ANSI/ADA Standard 101 and to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of instruments from different brands. Material and Methods: ten first series instruments of each tested brands were used. The images of the instruments were obtained with a stereoscopic magnifying glass attached to a digital camera. The measurements were performed using the TSView imaging software. The diameters of the instruments were determined from D0 to D12, with measuring intervals of 1.0 mm. The taper was calculated by adopting the diameters of D10 and D2. The cyclic fatigue test was performed using a custom device. The artificial canal was manufactured in a tapered manner corresponding to the instruments tested. Results: no trademark fully complies with ANSI/ADA Standard 101. The instruments presented different aspects of the finishing surface. The Dentsply-Maillefer instruments had greater cyclic fatigue strength than Angelus and CC Cord instruments (P < 0.05). The fracture surface morphologies of the instruments presented different characteristics. The Angelus instruments presented “sand marks” characteristics of failure of a material with high ductility. The Dentsply-Maillefer instrument presented a regular appearance, whereas the CC Cord presented irregular appearance. Conclusion: none of the brands fully complied with ANSI/ADA Standard 101. Dentsply-Maillefer brand instruments presented better cyclic fatigue results when compared to the other instruments tested.