4.2 Article

Influence of environmental temperature, heat-treatment and design on the cyclic fatigue resistance of three generations of a single-file nickel-titanium rotary instrument

期刊

ODONTOLOGY
卷 107, 期 3, 页码 301-307

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10266-018-0399-5

关键词

Cyclic fatigue; Differential scanning calorimetry; Heat-treatment; One Curve; OneShape

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of environmental temperature, heat-treatment*** and design on the cyclic fatigue resistance of OneShape (OS), OneShape new generation (OSNG) and One Curve (OC) NiTi rotary single-file instruments. Cyclic fatigue testing of NiTi instruments was performed in an artificial canal with a 5-mm radius of curvature and a 60 degrees angle of curvature located 5mm from the tip of the instrument. During the experiment 3 different temperatures were used in a thermostatic bath with electronic and infrared controls: 0 degrees, 20 degrees and 35 degrees C. Sixty OneShape, 60 OneShape new generation and 60 One Curve instruments were rotated in the artificial canal until fracture occurred and the number of cycles to fracture (NCF) and the length of the fractured fragment (FL) was recorded. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA test at the 5% significance level. Fatigue resistance was significantly higher as the environmental temperature decreased, with differences ranging from 61 to 791%. OC instruments were significantly more resistant to cyclic fatigue than OS and OSNG instruments at all the temperatures tested (P<0.05). There was no significant difference with respect to the length of the fractured file fragments for all the instruments tested at all the temperatures tested (P>0.05). Within the limitation of the present study, fatigue resistance of the files was significantly increased when the environmental temperature decreased. OC instruments were significantly more resistant to cyclic fatigue than OS and OSNG instruments at all the temperatures tested.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据