4.5 Article

Blue Treatment Enhances Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Vortex Nickel-Titanium Rotary Files

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Volume 40, Issue 9, Pages 1451-1453

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.020

Keywords

Cyclic fatigue resistance; metal treatment; nickel-titanium instruments

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the difference in cyclic fatigue resistance between Vortex Blue (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK) and Profile Vortex nickel-titanium (Dentsply Tulsa Dental) rotary instruments. Methods: Two groups of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments, Pro File Vortex and Vortex Blue, consisting of identical instruments in tip size and taper (15/.04, 20/.06, 25/.04, 25/.06, 30/.06, 35/.06, and 40/.04) were tested. Ten instruments from each system and size were tested for cyclic fatigue resistance, re-suiting in a total of 140 new instruments. All instruments were rotated in a simulated root canal with a 60 degrees angle of curvature and a 5-mm radius of curvature of a specific cyclic fatigue testing device until fracture occurred. The number of cycles to failure and the length of the fractured tip were recorded for each instrument in each group. The mean values and standard deviation were calculated, and data were subjected to 1-way analysis of variance and a Bonferroni t test. Significance was set at the 95% confidence level. Results: When comparing the same size of the 2 different instruments, a statistically significant difference (P < .05) was noted between all sizes of Vortex Blue and Profile Vortex instruments except for tip size 15 and .04 taper (P = 1.000). No statistically significant difference (P > .05) was noted among all groups tested in terms of fragment length. Conclusions: Vortex Blue showed a significant increase in cyclic fatigue resistance when compared with the same sizes of ProFile Vortex.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available