4.6 Article

Structural Assessment of Endodontic Files via Finite Element Analysis

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 13, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app131810293

关键词

root canal treatment; endodontic file; finite element analysis; shape memory alloy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A methodology for the structural assessment and fatigue behavior prediction of Nickel-Titanium endodontic files was proposed. The study showed that hysteresis energy density can be used as a predictor of low cycle fatigue failure. Validated models revealed that F1 has lower structural stiffness but longer fatigue life compared to F2.
A methodology for the structural assessment of Nickel-Titanium (Ni-Ti) endodontic files and a novel approach to predict their fatigue behavior using finite element method (FEM) were proposed. ProTaper-Universal F1 and F2 endodontic files were selected due to availability of extensive test data needed for the validation of the methodology. Bending and torsional loadings were analyzed since these provide essential data for the structural integrity assessment for the endodontic files. High-definition FEM models and their computationally efficient idealized versions were developed. The results for the bending and torsional stiffness of the F1 endodontic file agreed with the literature data validating the proposed methodology. Hysteresis energy density was shown to give promising results as a predictor of low cycle fatigue failure. The predictions with the idealized models matched those of the high-definition models, justifying the proposed idealizations. The validated models demonstrated that F2 has 60% higher bending and torsion resistance and 7% higher hysteresis energy density per cycle with respect to F1, leading to the conclusion that F1 has a lower structural stiffness but a longer fatigue life as compared to F2. In summary, the developed methodology allows for the structural and durability evaluation of various design parameters for Ni-Ti endodontic files.

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

4.6
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