Investigation of four nickel titanium endodontic instruments, with cyclic fatigue resistance, scanning electron microscopy, and energy dispersive x‐ray spectroscopy

Abstract

AbstractThe aim of this study was to compare of four different nickel‐titanium (Ni‐Ti) endodontic files and evaluate in terms of cyclic fatigue resistance and metallurgical properties. Four different type Ni‐Ti root canal files Protaper Next X2 (PTN) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), One Curve (OC) #25.06 (Micro Mega, Besancon, France), EndoPlus Flex Plus Gold X2 (EPG) (Turkuaz Dental, Denizli, Turkey), and EndoPlus Flex Plus Blue #25.06 (EPB) (Turkuaz Dental, Denizli, Turkey) files were tested for cyclic fatigue resistance (n = 20). During experiments artificial zirconia block canal was used. The artificial canal designed with curvature 60° and 5‐mm radius. The number of cyclic to fracture (NCF) was noted. Fractured length (FL) parts of Ni‐Ti files were recorded to assessment of fracture volumetric point. All fractured surfaces of Ni‐Ti files were assessed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) to confirm the type of fractures. Descriptive evaluation become accomplished for the fundamental composition of units with the aid of using energy‐dispersive x‐ray spectroscopy (EDX). NCF data were evaluated via Bonferroni test with post hoc multiple comparison method. OC showed the highest NCF values (p < .05). The standardization of the study was confirmed as the FL of files was statistically similar in length (p > .05). SEM analysis confirmed that all scanned samples were fractured due to cyclic fatigue. EDX analysis confirmed that EPB established the poorest Ni content file.Research Highlights The cyclic fatigue‐related failure of One Curve was significantly more resistant than Protaper Next and EndoPlus files. Scanning electron microscopy images showed that One Curve and Protaper Next have round tips Energy dispersive x‐ray spectroscopy showed that all four endodontic instruments mainly have Nickel and Titanium elements