Effect of Core Mass and Alloy on Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Different Nickel-Titanium Endodontic Instruments in Matching Artificial Canals

Abstract

Instrument failure during root canal preparation is still a concern among endodontists. However, it remains unclear whether the use of more martensitic alloys or the cross-sectional design parameters (i.e., core mass) significantly improve fracture resistance. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of core mass and alloy on dynamic cyclic fatigue resistance of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments in matching artificial canals at body temperature. Two groups were tested. (A) taper 0.04: F360 (Komet, Lemgo, Germany), Twisted file (Sybron Endo, Glendora, CA, USA) (=TF), JIZAI (Mani, Tochigi, Japan) (=J_04) (all size #25) and the variable tapered TruNatomy (Dentsply, Ballaigues, Switzerland) (size #26) (=TN). (B) size #25; taper 0.06: (Mtwo (VDW, Munich, Germany), JIZAI (Mani) (=J_06), and variable tapered Hyflex EDM OneFile (Coltene Whaledent, Altstätten, Switzerland) (=HF). Time, number of cycles to fracture (NCF), and number and length of fractured fragments were recorded and statistically analysed using ANOVA Student-Newman-Keuls, Kruskal–Wallis or Chi-square test (significance level = 0.05). (A) TN showed the significantly shortest time until fracture, followed by TF, F360 and J_04 which also differed significantly, while NCF showed the following order: F360 < TN < TF < J_04 (p < 0.05). Only one J_04 but all instruments of the other groups fractured within the test-limit of 10 min. (B) Mtwo was significantly inferior concerning time until fracture and NCF, compared to J_06 and HF (p < 0.05), which did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). While all Mtwo instruments fractured, only four instruments failed in the other groups (p < 0.05). Within the limitations of this study, alloy and cross-sectional design (i.e., core mass) were critical factors regarding instrument failure, but none of these factors could be determined as a main parameter for increased or decreased time, and cycles to fracture. Rather, it seemed to be the interaction of multiple factors (e.g., longitudinal and cross-sectional design, alloy, and rotational speed) that was responsible for differences in the time and cycles to fracture. Nonetheless, all instruments had lifetimes that allow safe clinical use. However, the superiority or inferiority of an instrument with regard to cyclic fatigue based on laboratory results—even when identical trajectories are guaranteed—may be considered questionable, as the characteristics and design parameters of the instruments vary considerably, and the experimental setups lack additional clinical parameters and thus clinical relevance.