Cargando…

A comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion at various curvatures – An in vitro study

AIM: The aim of the study to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion in coronal, middle, and apical curvature of the simulated artificial canal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total number of 36 new files, 25 mm length of ISO size 25 at the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mathew, Priya Alice, Nair, Rajesh Sasidharan, Christaine Angelo, Jeyabalaji Mano, Mathai, Vijay, Vineet, R. V., Christopher, Sarah Renjelina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7542075/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33088064
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_203_19
_version_ 1783591486212800512
author Mathew, Priya Alice
Nair, Rajesh Sasidharan
Christaine Angelo, Jeyabalaji Mano
Mathai, Vijay
Vineet, R. V.
Christopher, Sarah Renjelina
author_facet Mathew, Priya Alice
Nair, Rajesh Sasidharan
Christaine Angelo, Jeyabalaji Mano
Mathai, Vijay
Vineet, R. V.
Christopher, Sarah Renjelina
author_sort Mathew, Priya Alice
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of the study to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion in coronal, middle, and apical curvature of the simulated artificial canal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total number of 36 new files, 25 mm length of ISO size 25 at the tip and a taper of 0.06, were used for the study and divided into two groups of 18 files each. Group I: FlexiCON X(3), was used in a rotary motion and Group II: FlexiCON X(1) was used in a reciprocating motion. Cyclic fatigue testing was conducted in a custom-made device that allowed for a reproducible simulation of a curved canal. The canal system, which comprised two adjustable stainless steel blocks, had a 60° angle of curvature and 3 mm width. The groups were further divided into three subgroups with six files in each, representing apical curvature (Group Ia/IIa), middle curvature (Group Ib/IIb), and Coronal curvature (Group Ic/IIc). Using X-Smart plus motor, files were used in rotary and reciprocating mode and the number of cycles to failure was recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Post hoc followed by Dunnett's test and unpaired t-test using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 16 version. RESULTS: FlexiCON X1 reciprocating files showed the maximum cyclic fatigue resistance at coronal curvature (1936.50 ± 1.09) followed by middle (1514.50 ± 1.07) and apical curvature (1487.50 ± 6.75), while FlexiCON X3 rotary files showed the maximum cyclic fatigue at the middle curvature (1106.00 ± 4.21), followed by coronal (920.00 ± 1.16) and apical curvature (757.00 ± 5.34). The statistical analysis revealed a statistically significant difference (P = 0.001) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: FlexiCON X1 reciprocating files showed better cyclic fatigue resistance at coronal, middle, and apical curvature compared to FlexiCON X3 rotary files.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7542075
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75420752020-10-20 A comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion at various curvatures – An in vitro study Mathew, Priya Alice Nair, Rajesh Sasidharan Christaine Angelo, Jeyabalaji Mano Mathai, Vijay Vineet, R. V. Christopher, Sarah Renjelina J Conserv Dent Original Article AIM: The aim of the study to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion in coronal, middle, and apical curvature of the simulated artificial canal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total number of 36 new files, 25 mm length of ISO size 25 at the tip and a taper of 0.06, were used for the study and divided into two groups of 18 files each. Group I: FlexiCON X(3), was used in a rotary motion and Group II: FlexiCON X(1) was used in a reciprocating motion. Cyclic fatigue testing was conducted in a custom-made device that allowed for a reproducible simulation of a curved canal. The canal system, which comprised two adjustable stainless steel blocks, had a 60° angle of curvature and 3 mm width. The groups were further divided into three subgroups with six files in each, representing apical curvature (Group Ia/IIa), middle curvature (Group Ib/IIb), and Coronal curvature (Group Ic/IIc). Using X-Smart plus motor, files were used in rotary and reciprocating mode and the number of cycles to failure was recorded. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Post hoc followed by Dunnett's test and unpaired t-test using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 16 version. RESULTS: FlexiCON X1 reciprocating files showed the maximum cyclic fatigue resistance at coronal curvature (1936.50 ± 1.09) followed by middle (1514.50 ± 1.07) and apical curvature (1487.50 ± 6.75), while FlexiCON X3 rotary files showed the maximum cyclic fatigue at the middle curvature (1106.00 ± 4.21), followed by coronal (920.00 ± 1.16) and apical curvature (757.00 ± 5.34). The statistical analysis revealed a statistically significant difference (P = 0.001) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: FlexiCON X1 reciprocating files showed better cyclic fatigue resistance at coronal, middle, and apical curvature compared to FlexiCON X3 rotary files. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019 2020-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7542075/ /pubmed/33088064 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_203_19 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Mathew, Priya Alice
Nair, Rajesh Sasidharan
Christaine Angelo, Jeyabalaji Mano
Mathai, Vijay
Vineet, R. V.
Christopher, Sarah Renjelina
A comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion at various curvatures – An in vitro study
title A comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion at various curvatures – An in vitro study
title_full A comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion at various curvatures – An in vitro study
title_fullStr A comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion at various curvatures – An in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed A comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion at various curvatures – An in vitro study
title_short A comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of FlexiCON (Edge Endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion at various curvatures – An in vitro study
title_sort comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of flexicon (edge endo) files in rotary versus reciprocating motion at various curvatures – an in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7542075/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33088064
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_203_19
work_keys_str_mv AT mathewpriyaalice acomparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT nairrajeshsasidharan acomparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT christaineangelojeyabalajimano acomparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT mathaivijay acomparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT vineetrv acomparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT christophersarahrenjelina acomparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT mathewpriyaalice comparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT nairrajeshsasidharan comparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT christaineangelojeyabalajimano comparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT mathaivijay comparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT vineetrv comparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy
AT christophersarahrenjelina comparativeevaluationofcyclicfatigueresistanceofflexiconedgeendofilesinrotaryversusreciprocatingmotionatvariouscurvaturesaninvitrostudy