» Articles » PMID: 29142876

Comparison of the Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of HyFlex EDM, One G, and ProGlider Nickel Titanium Glide Path Instruments in Single and Double Curvature Canals

Overview
Date 2017 Nov 17
PMID 29142876
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: It was aimed to compare the cyclic fatigue resistances of ProGlider (PG), One G (OG), and HyFlex EDM (HEDM) nickel titanium glide path files in single- and double-curved artificial canals.

Materials And Methods: 40 PG (16/0.02), 40 OG (14/0.03), and 40 HEDM (10/0.05) single-file glide path files were used in the present study. Sixty files were subjected to cyclic fatigue test by using double-curved canals and 60 files by using single-curved canal ( = 20). The number of cycles to fracture (NCF) was calculated and the length of the fractured fragment (FL) was determined by a digital micro-caliper. Twelve pieces of fractured files were examined with scanning electron microscope to determine fracture types of the files ( = 2). The NCF and the FL data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test using SPSS 21 software ( < 0.05).

Results: In all of the groups, NCF values were significantly lower in double-curved canals when compared to single-curved canals ( < 0.05). For both of single- and double-curved canals, NCF values of HEDM group in apical and coronal curvatures were found to be significantly higher than NCF values of PG and OG groups ( < 0.05). In both of single- and double-curved canals, NCF value of PG group was found significantly higher than OG group ( < 0.05).

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, HEDM glide path files were found to have the highest cyclic fatigue resistance in both of single- and double-curved canals.

Citing Articles

Glide Path in Endodontics: A Literature Review of Current Knowledge.

Lup V, Malvicini G, Gaeta C, Grandini S, Ciavoi G Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(8).

PMID: 39195101 PMC: 11352993. DOI: 10.3390/dj12080257.


The effect of canal curvature on cyclic fatigue resistance of rotary instruments using different irrigation materials ( study).

Alsunboli M, Ihsan S, Sabah D F1000Res. 2024; 12:449.

PMID: 38721249 PMC: 11078266. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.130249.2.


Investigation of the efficacy of different Ni-Ti systems on acrylic blocks for correcting ledge formation.

Unlu O, Gunec H, Haznedaroglu F BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1):174.

PMID: 36966308 PMC: 10040126. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-02865-8.


Comparative analysis of torsional and cyclic fatigue resistance of ProGlider, WaveOne Gold Glider, and TruNatomy Glider in simulated curved canal.

Dias P, Kato A, Bueno C, Vivan R, Duarte M, Calefi P Restor Dent Endod. 2023; 48(1):e4.

PMID: 36875808 PMC: 9982240. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2023.48.e4.


Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Glide Path Rotary Files: A Systematic Review of in Vitro Studies.

Ashkar I, Sanz J, Forner L Materials (Basel). 2022; 15(19).

PMID: 36234003 PMC: 9571085. DOI: 10.3390/ma15196662.


References
1.
Uslu G, Ozyurek T, Inan U . Comparison of Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of ProGlider and One G Glide Path Files. J Endod. 2016; 42(10):1555-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.012. View

2.
Plotino G, Grande N, Sorci E, Malagnino V, Somma F . A comparison of cyclic fatigue between used and new Mtwo Ni-Ti rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2006; 39(9):716-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01142.x. View

3.
Braga L, Faria Silva A, Buono V, de Azevedo Bahia M . Impact of heat treatments on the fatigue resistance of different rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2014; 40(9):1494-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.03.007. View

4.
Gambarini G, Grande N, Plotino G, Somma F, Garala M, De Luca M . Fatigue resistance of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium instruments produced by new manufacturing methods. J Endod. 2008; 34(8):1003-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.05.007. View

5.
Plotino G, Testarelli L, Al-Sudani D, Pongione G, Grande N, Gambarini G . Fatigue resistance of rotary instruments manufactured using different nickel-titanium alloys: a comparative study. Odontology. 2012; 102(1):31-5. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-012-0088-8. View