An in vitro comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of two rotary and two reciprocating file systems

Abstract

Context: Root canal instrumentation is one of the important procedures for successful endodontic therapy. Unexpected fracture of files occurs during root canal instrumentation without any visible signs of deformation compromising the success of root canal treatment. Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare cyclic fatigue resistance (CFR) of rotary and reciprocating files in simulated canals with 45°, 60°, and 90° angle of curvature. Settings and Design: The study design was an In vitro study. Subjects and Methods: Sixty nickel–titanium files, 30 each of rotary and reciprocating files were selected and divided into four groups (n = 15) of Neoendo Flex, ProTaper Next, WaveOne Gold (WOG), and Reciproc Blue (RPB) files. Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups containing five samples each based on their use in simulated canals with 45°, 60°, and 90° angle of curvature. To simulate root canals with 45°, 60°, and 90° angle of curvature, three artificial canals were designed in a stainless steel metal block. Each file was autoclaved, immersed in 3% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and coated with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Each file was tested for CFR using a torque-controlled reduction handpiece by instrumenting in a simulated canal for 10 s until fracture. The cycle of autoclaving, exposure to NaOCl, EDTA, and testing of CFR for 10 s per canal as per groups and subgroups was repeated again and again until the respective file fracture. The time taken to file fracture was recorded using a digital chronometer. The time taken for each file fracture (in minutes) was multiplied by the number of rotations per minute to attain the number of cycles to failure (NCF). Statistical Analysis Used: The obtained results were subjected to statistical analysis using one-way analysis of variance and independent t-test. Results: One-way ANOVA test showed a statistically significant difference between the four groups, P < 0.001. Independent “t”-test between individual subgroups showed a statistically significant difference, as P < 0.05. Conclusions: WOG and RPB reciprocating file systems showed superior CFR, more especially in canals with abrupt 90° angle of curvature compared to both rotary file systems tested. Among rotary file systems tested, Neoendo Flex showed greater CFR than ProTaper Next.