Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to compare the cyclic fatigue of EdgeFile, ProTaper Gold, OneShape, and ProTaper nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Materials and methods: F2 ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Gold (Dentsply, Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK, USA), C2 EdgeFile (EDGEENDO, Albuquerque, NM, USA), and size 25 OneShape (Micro-Mega, Besancon Cedex, France) (15 instruments each group) were tested for cyclic fatigue in an artificial canal with a 6-mm radius and a 45° curvature. The number of cycles to fatigue (NCF) was recorded, the lateral surface and fractured face of segments were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and the cross-sectional area was measured. One-way ANOVAs and Games-Howell tests were utilized for data analysis. A significant difference was set at 0.05. Results: The EdgeFile had significantly greater resistance to cyclic fatigue, compared with the ProTaper Gold, OneShape, and ProTaper Universal (p 0.05), and the ProTaper Universal exhibited significantly lower resistance to cyclic fatigue compared to the other systems (p 0.05). No significant differences were found among the groups regarding the length of the fractured segments (p>0.05). Conclusion: EdgeFile rotary files have superior resistance to cyclic fatigue, followed in order by the ProTaper Gold, OneShape, and ProTaper Universal rotary files.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
