Characterization of four heat‐treated reciprocating instruments: Design, metallurgy, mechanical performance, and irrigation flow patterns

Abstract

AbstractAimTo compare the design, metallurgy, and mechanical properties of four heat‐treated reciprocating instruments coupled with the evaluation of the irrigation flow using an in silico model.MethodologyNew EdgeOne Fire Primary, Easy‐File Flex Regular 25, WaveOne Gold Primary and Reciproc Blue R25 instruments (n = 124) were initially evaluated regarding their design through stereomicroscopy, scanning electron microscopy and 3D surface scanning. In addition, energy‐dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy was utilized to determine their elemental composition, and differential scanning calorimetry tests to evaluate their phase transformation temperatures. Their mechanical performance was further assessed through torsional and bending tests. Using scans obtained from a real tooth and the instruments, a computational fluid dynamics assessment was conducted to determine the irrigation flow pattern, apical pressure, and wall shear stress in simulated canal preparation. Mood's median and One‐way anova post hoc Tukey tests were used for statistical comparisons (α = 5%).ResultsReciproc Blue exhibited a superior number of blades (n = 8), whereas EdgeOne Fire had the highest overall volume (4.38 mm3) and surface area (32.32 mm2). At the 3‐mm axial level, EdgeOne Fire displayed the lowest core diameter (0.13 mm), while Reciproc Blue had the highest (0.16 mm). All blades were symmetrical, and the tips of the instruments were non‐active but differed from each other. The most irregular surfaces were observed in EdgeOne Fire and Easy‐File Flex. All instruments were manufactured from nickel–titanium alloys and exhibited distinct phase transformation temperatures. WaveOne Gold and Reciproc Blue demonstrated the highest maximum torque values (1.87 and 1.62 N cm, respectively), while the lowest was observed on EdgeOne Fire (1.21 N cm) (p < .05). The most flexible (p < .05) were EdgeOne Fire (angle of rotation: 602.6°; maximum bending load: 251.4 g.f) and Reciproc Blue (533.2° and 235.6 g.f). There were no significant differences observed in the irrigation flow among the four domains generated by the tested instruments.ConclusionsDespite observing variations in the design, phase transformation temperatures, and in the torsional and bending test outcomes among the four heat‐treated reciprocating instruments, no significant differences were found in the irrigation flow pattern among the different groups in the simulated root canal preparations.