A comparative study of mechanical resistance of two reciprocating files.

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the cyclic fatigue resistance of two different Nickel-Titanium instruments, Reziflow (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) and WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two groups of 20 different NiTi endodontic instruments of identical tip size of 0.25 mm were tested; Reziflow and Wave-One Gold primary. Cyclic fatigue testing was performed in a stainless steel simulated root canal manufactured by reproducing the instrument's size and taper. A simulated root canal with a 90 degrees angle of curvature and 5 mm radius of curvature was constructed for the instruments tested. The centre of the curvature was 5 mm from the tip of the instrument and the curved segment of the canal was approximately 5 mm in length. Both the instruments were used in the same preset program specific for the WaveOne instruments. Each instrument was rotated until fracture occurred and the time to fracture (TtF) and the length of the fractured fragment were recorded. Means and standard deviations of TtF and fragment length were calculated and data were subjected to statical analysis (<0.05).

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences (<0.05) were noted between Reziflow and WaveOne Gold instruments. There were no significant differences (>0.05) in the mean length of the fractured fragments between the instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

Rezifllow instruments were associated with a significantly higher cyclic fatigue resistance than WaveOne Gold instruments. Endodontic instruments, NiTi alloy, Reciprocating motion, Cyclic Fatigue, Heat treatment.