A comparison of two reciprocating instruments using bending stress and cyclic fatigue tests

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: SCELZA,Pantaleo
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Harry,DAVIDOWICZ, SILVA,Licinio Esmeraldo da, BARBOSA,Igor Bastos, SCELZA,Miriam Zaccaro
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Oral Research
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242015000100311
Resumo: The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the bending resistance at 45º, the static and dynamic cyclic fatigue life, and the fracture type of the WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) 25-08 and Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) 25-08 instruments. A total of 60 nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments (30 Reciproc and 30 WaveOne) from three different lots, each of which was 25 mm in length, were tested. The bending resistance was evaluated through the results of a cantilever-bending test conducted using a universal testing machine. Static and dynamic cyclic fatigue testing was conducted using a custom-made device. For the static and dynamic tests, a cast Ni-Cr-Mo-Ti alloy metal block with an artificial canal measuring 1.77 mm in diameter and 20.00 mm in total length was used. A scanning electron microscope was used to determine the type of fracture. Statistical analyses were performed on the results. The WaveOne instrument was less flexible than the Reciproc (p < 0.05). The Reciproc instrument showed better resistance in the static and dynamic cyclic fatigue tests (p < 0.05). The transverse cross-section and geometry of the instruments were important factors in their resistance to bending and cyclic fracture. Both of the instruments showed ductile-type fracture characteristics. It can be concluded that the Reciproc 25-08 instrument was more resistant to static and dynamic cyclic fatigue than the WaveOne 25-08 instrument, while the WaveOne 25-08 instrument was less flexible. Bending and resistance to cyclic fracture were influenced by the instruments’ geometries and transverse cross-sections. Both of the instruments showed ductile-type fracture characteristics.
id SBPQO-1_a22b5e1faf5f4b6a30ce350085552025
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1806-83242015000100311
network_acronym_str SBPQO-1
network_name_str Brazilian Oral Research
repository_id_str
spelling A comparison of two reciprocating instruments using bending stress and cyclic fatigue testsDental InstrumentsEndodonticsStress, MechanicalThe aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the bending resistance at 45º, the static and dynamic cyclic fatigue life, and the fracture type of the WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) 25-08 and Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) 25-08 instruments. A total of 60 nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments (30 Reciproc and 30 WaveOne) from three different lots, each of which was 25 mm in length, were tested. The bending resistance was evaluated through the results of a cantilever-bending test conducted using a universal testing machine. Static and dynamic cyclic fatigue testing was conducted using a custom-made device. For the static and dynamic tests, a cast Ni-Cr-Mo-Ti alloy metal block with an artificial canal measuring 1.77 mm in diameter and 20.00 mm in total length was used. A scanning electron microscope was used to determine the type of fracture. Statistical analyses were performed on the results. The WaveOne instrument was less flexible than the Reciproc (p < 0.05). The Reciproc instrument showed better resistance in the static and dynamic cyclic fatigue tests (p < 0.05). The transverse cross-section and geometry of the instruments were important factors in their resistance to bending and cyclic fracture. Both of the instruments showed ductile-type fracture characteristics. It can be concluded that the Reciproc 25-08 instrument was more resistant to static and dynamic cyclic fatigue than the WaveOne 25-08 instrument, while the WaveOne 25-08 instrument was less flexible. Bending and resistance to cyclic fracture were influenced by the instruments’ geometries and transverse cross-sections. Both of the instruments showed ductile-type fracture characteristics.Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO2015-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242015000100311Brazilian Oral Research v.29 n.1 2015reponame:Brazilian Oral Researchinstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)instacron:SBPQO10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0107info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSCELZA,PantaleoHarry,DAVIDOWICZSILVA,Licinio Esmeraldo daBARBOSA,Igor BastosSCELZA,Miriam Zaccaroeng2018-08-17T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1806-83242015000100311Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/bor/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phppob@edu.usp.br||bor@sbpqo.org.br1807-31071806-8324opendoar:2018-08-17T00:00Brazilian Oral Research - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A comparison of two reciprocating instruments using bending stress and cyclic fatigue tests
title A comparison of two reciprocating instruments using bending stress and cyclic fatigue tests
spellingShingle A comparison of two reciprocating instruments using bending stress and cyclic fatigue tests
SCELZA,Pantaleo
Dental Instruments
Endodontics
Stress, Mechanical
title_short A comparison of two reciprocating instruments using bending stress and cyclic fatigue tests
title_full A comparison of two reciprocating instruments using bending stress and cyclic fatigue tests
title_fullStr A comparison of two reciprocating instruments using bending stress and cyclic fatigue tests
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of two reciprocating instruments using bending stress and cyclic fatigue tests
title_sort A comparison of two reciprocating instruments using bending stress and cyclic fatigue tests
author SCELZA,Pantaleo
author_facet SCELZA,Pantaleo
Harry,DAVIDOWICZ
SILVA,Licinio Esmeraldo da
BARBOSA,Igor Bastos
SCELZA,Miriam Zaccaro
author_role author
author2 Harry,DAVIDOWICZ
SILVA,Licinio Esmeraldo da
BARBOSA,Igor Bastos
SCELZA,Miriam Zaccaro
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv SCELZA,Pantaleo
Harry,DAVIDOWICZ
SILVA,Licinio Esmeraldo da
BARBOSA,Igor Bastos
SCELZA,Miriam Zaccaro
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Dental Instruments
Endodontics
Stress, Mechanical
topic Dental Instruments
Endodontics
Stress, Mechanical
description The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the bending resistance at 45º, the static and dynamic cyclic fatigue life, and the fracture type of the WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) 25-08 and Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) 25-08 instruments. A total of 60 nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments (30 Reciproc and 30 WaveOne) from three different lots, each of which was 25 mm in length, were tested. The bending resistance was evaluated through the results of a cantilever-bending test conducted using a universal testing machine. Static and dynamic cyclic fatigue testing was conducted using a custom-made device. For the static and dynamic tests, a cast Ni-Cr-Mo-Ti alloy metal block with an artificial canal measuring 1.77 mm in diameter and 20.00 mm in total length was used. A scanning electron microscope was used to determine the type of fracture. Statistical analyses were performed on the results. The WaveOne instrument was less flexible than the Reciproc (p < 0.05). The Reciproc instrument showed better resistance in the static and dynamic cyclic fatigue tests (p < 0.05). The transverse cross-section and geometry of the instruments were important factors in their resistance to bending and cyclic fracture. Both of the instruments showed ductile-type fracture characteristics. It can be concluded that the Reciproc 25-08 instrument was more resistant to static and dynamic cyclic fatigue than the WaveOne 25-08 instrument, while the WaveOne 25-08 instrument was less flexible. Bending and resistance to cyclic fracture were influenced by the instruments’ geometries and transverse cross-sections. Both of the instruments showed ductile-type fracture characteristics.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242015000100311
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242015000100311
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0107
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Oral Research v.29 n.1 2015
reponame:Brazilian Oral Research
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)
instacron:SBPQO
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)
instacron_str SBPQO
institution SBPQO
reponame_str Brazilian Oral Research
collection Brazilian Oral Research
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Oral Research - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv pob@edu.usp.br||bor@sbpqo.org.br
_version_ 1750318324359626752