Design, metallurgical features, mechanical performance and canal preparation of six reciprocating instruments.

AIM: To compare six reciprocating instruments regarding their geometric design, metallurgical characteristics, mechanical behaviour and ability to prepare root canals. METHODOLOGY: A total of 246 new 25-mm NiTi instruments (41 per group) from six reciprocating systems (Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, One Files, One Files Blue, Reverso Silver, and WaveOne Gold) were evaluated throughout a multimethod approach regarding their design using stereomicroscopy (number of blades and helix angle) and scanning electron microscopy (blades symmetry, cross section and surface finishing), nickel-titanium composition, phase transformation temperatures, mechanical performance (cyclic fatigue, torsional and bending resistance) and unprepared canal surface area on anatomically matched mandibular molars assessed by micro-CT. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's or Mood's median tests were selected depending on sample distribution with significance level set at 5%. RESULTS: The instruments had similarities regarding their metal composition and unprepared canal area, whilst differences in phase transformation temperatures and geometric design (number of blades, surface finishing and tip geometry) were observed. Overall, no difference was observed regarding the maximum torque values (P > 0.05), whilst One Files (72 s) and One Files Blue (414 s) had the shortest and longest times to fracture, respectively (P < 0.05). Similar angles of rotation were observed in Reciproc (310°), One Files (285°) and Reverso Silver (318°) instruments (P > 0.05), which were significantly lower than Reciproc Blue (492°), One Files Blue (456°) and WaveOne Gold (492°; P < 0.05). Maximum bending load demonstrated that Reciproc Blue (201.3 gf) was significantly more flexible that the other instruments (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although there were similarities in metal composition and percentage of unprepared canal surface, the instruments had differences in the overall geometric design, phase transformation temperatures and in the four mechanical resistance parameters (time to fracture, maximum torque, angle of rotation and maximum bending load).

Bending, buckling and torsional resistance of rotary and reciprocating glide path instruments.

AIM: To evaluate the bending, buckling and torsional resistance of ProGlider (PG) (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), R-Pilot (RP) (VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne Gold Glider (WOGG) (Dentsply Sirona). METHODOLOGY: Ninety instruments were used: 30 PG (size 0.16, .02v taper), 30 RP (size 0.125, .04 taper) and 30 WOGG (size 0.15, .02v taper). The bending resistance test was performed on 10 randomly selected instruments of each system according to ISO 3630-1 specifications. For the buckling resistance test, a loading was applied in the axial direction of each instrument using a universal test machine, with a 20 N cell and 15 mm min-1 speed, in the axial direction. When a lateral elastic displacement of 1 mm occurred, the force was registered. The torsional resistance test was performed according to ISO 3630-1 specifications. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way anova and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: WOGG had the lowest bending resistance, whilst RP had the highest bending resistance (P < 0.05). RP also had the highest buckling resistance, and WOGG had the lowest (P < 0.05). PG had intermediate results regarding bending and buckling resistance, with significant differences to RP and WOGG (P < 0.05). RP had the highest torsional strength and the lowest angular deflection when compared to PG and WOGG (P < 0.05). No differences in the torsional strength and angular deflection were observed between WOGG and PG (P> 0.05). CONCLUSION: The glide path instruments had different behaviours in term of bending, buckling and torsional resistance.

Influence of heat treatment on torsional resistance and surface roughness of nickel-titanium instruments.

AIM: To evaluate the influence of controlled memory (CM) thermal treatment on the torsional resistance and surface roughness of nickel-titanium instruments with identical geometric and dimensional characteristics. The influence of environmental temperature on torsional resistance was also evaluated. METHODOLOGY: A sample of 25 conventional NiTi alloy and 25 CM thermal-treated NiTi instruments, with an identical geometric design and a nominal size of 0.25 mm at D0 and a nominal taper of .06 mm mm-1 were selected. The torsional strength and the angle of rotation of the instruments were tested following ISO 3630-1 at two temperatures: 21 and 35 °C. The fracture surfaces of all tested instruments were verified with a scanning electron microscope. The surface roughness of the blades of conventional NiTi alloy and CM wire files was evaluated by using a New View 7100 Profilometer. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test and paired t-test to analyse the torsional resistance and surface roughness at a significance level of P < 0.05. RESULTS: The torsional strength of thermally-treated instruments was significantly lower than nontreated instruments (P < 0.05). However, thermally-treated instruments had significantly greater angular rotation to fracture than nontreated instruments (P < 0.05). Temperature did not influence the torsional strength (P > 0.05) and the angular rotation (P > 0.05) of the instruments. Regarding the roughness measurements, groove depth was lower at the surface of thermally-treated instruments when compared to nontreated instruments (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Thermal treatment influenced the torsional resistance and surface roughness of NiTi instruments with identical geometric and dimensional characteristics. Temperature did not affect torsional behaviour.

Torsional fatigue resistance of R-Pilot and WaveOne Gold Glider NiTi glide path reciprocating systems.

AIM: To evaluate the torsional properties of the NiTi glide path reciprocating instruments R-Pilot (VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne Gold Glider (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland). METHODOLOGY: Ten R-Pilot (size 12.5, .04 taper) and 10 WaveOne Gold Glider (size 15, .02v taper) instruments were used. The torque and angle of rotation at failure of new instruments (n = 10) were measured according to ISO 3630-1. Three millimetres of each instrument tip was clamped to a small load cell by a lever arm linked to the torsion axis. The fracture surface of all fragments was examined with a scanning electron microscope. Data were analysed using the Student t-test at a significance level of P < 0.05. RESULTS: The maximum torsional strength of the R-Pilot instruments was greater than the WaveOne Gold Glider (P < 0.05). In contrast, WaveOne Gold Glider instruments had significantly higher angular rotation to fracture than R-Pilot instruments (P < 0.05). The scanning electron microscopy of the fracture surfaces revealed similar and typical features of torsional failure (ductile type) for both brands. The torsional failure displayed two zones: the first with microvoids in the centre of the instruments (core) and the second one represented by plastic deformation around the microvoids; this configuration occurred because of the shear stresses originated during the twisting. CONCLUSIONS: R-Pilot instruments had a lower angle of rotation to fracture but a higher torque to failure than WaveOne Gold Glider instruments.

Mechanical characteristics of counterfeit Reciproc instruments: a call for attention.

AIM: To report the main differences seen by direct visual inspection between original and counterfeit Reciproc instruments, together with an evaluation of instrument bending resistance, cyclic fatigue, surface finish, Vickers microhardness and chemical composition. METHODOLOGY: The visual aspects of original Reciproc R25 (VDW, Munich, Germany) and counterfeit Reciproc R25 instruments (claimed to be original, supposedly with dimensions similar to those of Reciproc R25 files, bought at www.mercadolivre.com.br) were evaluated under direct observation, stereomicroscopy and scanning electron microscope. The flexibility of original and counterfeit Reciproc R25 was determined via 45° bending tests according to the ISO 3630-1 specification. Instruments were also subjected to cyclic fatigue resistance, measuring the time to fracture in an artificial stainless steel canal with a 60° angle and 5-mm radius of curvature. The fracture surfaces of all fragments were examined under a scanning electron microscope. Roughness of the instruments was quantified using a profilometer, and the microhardness test was carried out using a Vickers hardness tester. Energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis (EDX) was also carried out. Results were analysed statistically using the Student's t-test at a significance level of P < 0.05. RESULTS: Although the packaging of the original and counterfeit instruments was similar, a number of differences were observed such as ISO colour coding, measurement marks, stopper and morphologic characteristics. Original Reciproc instruments had significantly longer cyclic fatigue life and significantly lower bending resistance than counterfeit Reciproc instruments (P < 0.05), as well as significantly lower microhardness and roughness (P < 0.05). EDX results revealed differences in the chemical composition of the instruments (P < 0.05), indicating that the instruments were manufactured with different raw material. CONCLUSION: Original Reciproc files outperformed counterfeit instruments in all tests. It is thus important that identification strategies for these counterfeit instruments be developed, thereby preventing their inadvertent use.