Influence of reuse and cervical preflaring on the fracture strength of reciprocating instruments

 

 Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study sought to assess the influence of cervical preflaring and reuse after resterilization, on fracture strength and plastic deformation and/or surface cracking in reciprocating nickel–titanium [NiTi] endodontic instruments after root canal instrumentation of extracted human teeth. Materials and Methods: Forty engine-driven reciprocating NiTi instruments (20 Reciproc^® [RC], VDW; 20 WaveOne^® [WO], Dentsply) were used in root canal instrumentation of extracted human molars. A total of 485 human upper molars with similar anatomical features were selected and randomly distributed across four groups according to the instrumentation procedures performed (G1 and G3: RC; G2 and G4: WO). Reciprocating instruments were used as per manufacturer instructions. In groups G3 and G4, cervical preflaring was performed prior to instrumentation. After each use of each instrument, sterilization was repeated and scanning electron microscope (SEM) images were obtained to check for plastic deformations and/or cracks on instrument surfaces. Each instrument was used repeatedly until fracture occurred. Results: Regardless of flaring, RC files exhibited greater fracture strength than WO instruments (P<0.01) with and without preflaring. Cervical preflaring significantly reduced the risk of instrument fracture (P<0.01). No plastic deformations were observed before fracturing. However, cracks were found on WO instruments shortly after their first use. RC and WO instruments resisted fracturing after autoclave sterilization. Conclusions: Cervical preflaring allowed a significant increase in the number of times RC and WO files could be reused safely.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Magalhães RR, Braga LC, Pereira ÉS, Peixoto IF, Buono VT, Bahia MG. The impact of clinical use on the torsional behavior of Reciproc and WaveOne instruments. J Appl Oral Sci 2016; 24: 310-6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Plotino G, Ahmed HM, Grande NM, Cohen S, Bukiet F. Current assessment of reciprocation in endodontic preparation: A comprehensive review – Part I: Properties and effectiveness. J Endod 2015; 41: 1939-50
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Svec TA, Powers JM, Nusstein JM, Daehn GS. SEM observations of nickel-titanium rotary endodontic instruments that fractured during clinical Use. J Endod 2005; 31: 40-3
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Al-Sudani D, Grande NM, Plotino G, Pompa G, Di Carlo S, Testarelli L. et al. Cyclic fatigue of nickel-titanium rotary instruments in a double (S-shaped) simulated curvature. J Endod 2012; 38: 987-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Yao JH, Schwartz SA, Beeson TJ. Cyclic fatigue of three types of rotary nickel-titanium files in a dynamic model. J Endod 2006; 32: 55-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, Scotti N, Cantatore G, Castellucci A. et al. Canal shaping with WaveOne Primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system: A comparative study. J Endod 2012; 38: 505-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Ehrhardt IC, Zuolo ML, Cunha RS, De Martin AS, Kherlakian D, Carvalho MC. et al. Assessment of the separation incidence of mtwo files used with preflaring: Prospective clinical study. J Endod 2012; 38: 1078-81
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: Preliminary observations. Int Endod J 2008; 41: 339-44
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Grande NM, Ahmed HM, Cohen S, Bukiet F, Plotino G. Current assessment of reciprocation in endodontic preparation: A comprehensive review-part I: Historic perspectives and current applications. J Endod 2015; 41: 1778-83
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Hanan AR, Meireles DA, Sponchiado Júnior EC, Hanan S, Kuga MC, Bonetti Filho I. Surface characteristics of reciprocating instruments before and after use – a SEM analysis. Braz Dent J 2015; 26: 121-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Plotino G, Giansiracusa Rubini A, Grande NM, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Cutting efficiency of Reciproc and waveOne reciprocating instruments. J Endod 2014; 40: 1228-30
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Estrela C, Holland R, Estrela CR, Alencar AH, Sousa-Neto MD, Pécora JD. Characterization of successful root canal treatment. Braz Dent J 2014; 25: 3-11
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 West JD. The endodontic Glidepath: “Secret to rotary safety”. Dent Today 2010; 29: 86, 88 90-3
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Kiefner P, Ban M, De-Deus G. Is the reciprocating movement per se able to improve the cyclic fatigue resistance of instruments?. Int Endod J 2014; 47: 430-6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Pedullà E, Lo Savio F, Boninelli S, Plotino G, Grande NM, La Rosa G. et al. Torsional and cyclic fatigue resistance of a new nickel-titanium instrument manufactured by electrical discharge machining. J Endod 2016; 42: 156-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Franco V, Fabiani C, Taschieri S, Malentacca A, Bortolin M, Del Fabbro M. Investigation on the shaping ability of nickel-titanium files when used with a reciprocating motion. J Endod 2011; 37: 1398-401
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Ye J, Gao Y. Metallurgical characterization of M-Wire nickel-titanium shape memory alloy used for endodontic rotary instruments during low-cycle fatigue. J Endod 2012; 38: 105-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Cheung GS, Darvell BW. Low-cycle fatigue of NiTi rotary instruments of various cross-sectional shapes. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 626-32
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Zhang EW, Cheung GS, Zheng YF. Influence of cross-sectional design and dimension on mechanical behavior of nickel-titanium instruments under torsion and bending: A numerical analysis. J Endod 2010; 36: 1394-8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Plotino G, Grande NM, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Cyclic fatigue of Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 614-8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Pedullà E, Franciosi G, Ounsi HF, Tricarico M, Rapisarda E, Grandini S. Cyclic fatigue resistance of nickel-titanium instruments after immersion in irrigant solutions with or without surfactants. J Endod 2014; 40: 1245-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Higuera O, Plotino G, Tocci L, Carrillo G, Gambarini G, Jaramillo DE. Cyclic fatigue resistance of 3 different nickel-titanium reciprocating instruments in artificial canals. J Endod 2015; 41: 913-5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Berutti E, Paolino DS, Chiandussi G, Alovisi M, Cantatore G, Castellucci A. et al. Root canal anatomy preservation of WaveOne reciprocating files with or without glide path. J Endod 2012; 38: 101-4
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 De-Deus G, Arruda TE, Souza EM, Neves A, Magalhães K, Thuanne E. et al. The ability of the Reciproc R25 instrument to reach the full root canal working length without a glide path. Int Endod J 2013; 46: 993-8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Schmidt TF, Teixeira CS, Felippe MC, Felippe WT, Pashley DH, Bortoluzzi EA. Effect of ultrasonic activation of irrigants on smear layer removal. J Endod 2015; 41: 1359-63
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Neves MA, Provenzano JC, Rôças IN, Siqueira Jr JF. Clinical antibacterial effectiveness of root canal preparation with reciprocating single-instrument or continuously rotating multi-instrument systems. J Endod 2016; 42: 25-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar