KACD
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 39(4); 2014 > Article
- Research Article Buckling resistance, bending stiffness, and torsional resistance of various instruments for canal exploration and glide path preparation
- Sang-Won Kwak1, Jung-Hong Ha2, WooCheol Lee3, Sung-Kyo Kim2, Hyeon-Cheol Kim1
-
2014;39(4):-275.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2014.39.4.270
Published online: July 16, 2014
1Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Korea.
2Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea. JFIF d d Ducky d qhttp://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/ |er˭|I|-fGK.rΛp8XV1%K6mvG+tc+qE &ǸC_Nm:l=_/m5^[dߌڇ.c<%:)tQ$Ow~-aY;UJ >=F)2[nk؆?훐 M=l6[4(O.]2#-H^n#->&mp5~Fӛ+|| S,xag% qkEUzUgæBhߕP(7]kFnq?֖Cpru Z6*rEڊtS|*tI*E}7R<,nUU֫^I7Q*mSly%rdȓd8hE<9oHhMfNSRj[i7D[Rj݊+kდq{"$$H?p \̅S?㭻;t~ R߁ )^/>Qj`yt[w ԛ;² ~+ ߔ_ YW~|o] ?x^ᯛ `ʼn;g)T@vWn]>&4l p+$D̢1l|ȨF%-} .9[}w~
ԠLM9hСablfe&QoW !s ?wjLK?s7yO>(=C~_nyǜu? v 3vyo oI@qV-jeES^[9WoSܝh"l2C1a͔CiJ@3:Pճw= /7ovuk+\V;lDgն <[A+r X~d;m!_s8ݖ;;.0llUC+?i#_crʙ1~C.\q u l8Hܶ2m`ܻM3Tov|Bs rɵ"oLS-
DКw=Tv@f '6|YlD͓Y%-#Ѯo%:&!3o%\J<02;K87>^vgƓ# ;ݝmz^Y6=PS39U%~
&f#
}o!muH; ʲŇ˷yvP+&.7e[3'vR4Yj̗IZ`e˽3o[WU{
m[sUbۋZǾۆl6~9'V*.\S2<Sd*zY[aŶ`]C$n.v^Ʌ
dng>ەZ,Mmϑ :n6nϦezW qUJ4! ۇ4R! =>>F n|Q[{pRO 17ƕ~._I ''00k=b՛o}Osðc2'o\3}ݭQ^ 2 . R1yKȣtAݿ-u ܾw!`?1Whn|gzU o[ECWwjUIן)^h#1ɭ!/Z
np;o;ΗŻkXs."6E`Z1
עӐ9Kl8qd q} 2Stt;#j>;խabONŗ=fwP1j)l6J̶|gV 2`y/0E˛6+ԫ1?
6}KW c\KoKͨ2ۅFws*TԞLיuDx .kCzWXhy۶gLu|%TnupǺl-S* P RaLnT+c+*xl.v!.U=|; !_L̎뱚U=4hm:ٯ"y)$:>%(n}X'p[ȴ
^˒4kƓmzDx
\
'Nq amP7nyN݅=
3Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. JFIF d d Ducky d qhttp://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/ |er˭|I|-fGK.rΛp8XV1%K6mvG+tc+qE &ǸC_Nm:l=_/m5^[dߌڇ.c<%:)tQ$Ow~-aY;UJ >=F)2[nk؆?훐 M=l6[4(O.]2#-H^n#->&mp5~Fӛ+|| S,xag% qkEUzUgæBhߕP(7]kFnq?֖Cpru Z6*rEڊtS|*tI*E}7R<,nUU֫^I7Q*mSly%rdȓd8hE<9oHhMfNSRj[i7D[Rj݊+kდq{"$$H?p \̅S?㭻;t~ R߁ )^/>Qj`yt[w ԛ;² ~+ ߔ_ YW~|o] ?x^ᯛ `ʼn;g)T@vWn]>&4l p+$D̢1l|ȨF%-} .9[}w~
ԠLM9hСablfe&QoW !s ?wjLK?s7yO>(=C~_nyǜu? v 3vyo oI@qV-jeES^[9WoSܝh"l2C1a͔CiJ@3:Pճw= /7ovuk+\V;lDgն <[A+r X~d;m!_s8ݖ;;.0llUC+?i#_crʙ1~C.\q u l8Hܶ2m`ܻM3Tov|Bs rɵ"oLS-
DКw=Tv@f '6|YlD͓Y%-#Ѯo%:&!3o%\J<02;K87>^vgƓ# ;ݝmz^Y6=PS39U%~
&f#
}o!muH; ʲŇ˷yvP+&.7e[3'vR4Yj̗IZ`e˽3o[WU{
m[sUbۋZǾۆl6~9'V*.\S2<Sd*zY[aŶ`]C$n.v^Ʌ
dng>ەZ,Mmϑ :n6nϦezW qUJ4! ۇ4R! =>>F n|Q[{pRO 17ƕ~._I ''00k=b՛o}Osðc2'o\3}ݭQ^ 2 . R1yKȣtAݿ-u ܾw!`?1Whn|gzU o[ECWwjUIן)^h#1ɭ!/Z
np;o;ΗŻkXs."6E`Z1
עӐ9Kl8qd q} 2Stt;#j>;խabONŗ=fwP1j)l6J̶|gV 2`y/0E˛6+ԫ1?
6}KW c\KoKͨ2ۅFws*TԞLיuDx .kCzWXhy۶gLu|%TnupǺl-S* P RaLnT+c+*xl.v!.U=|; !_L̎뱚U=4hm:ٯ"y)$:>%(n}X'p[ȴ
^˒4kƓmzDx
\
'Nq amP7nyN݅=
- Correspondence to Hyeon-Cheol Kim, DDS, MS, PhD. Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, 20 Geumo-ro, Mulgeum, Yangsan, Gyeongnam, Korea 626-787. TEL, +82-55-360-5222; FAX, +82-55-360-5214; golddent@pusan.ac.kr
• Received: June 4, 2014 • Accepted: June 9, 2014
©Copyights 2014. The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 2,912 Views
- 52 Download
- 13 Crossref
Abstract
-
Objectives This study compared the mechanical properties of various instruments for canal exploration and glide-path preparations.
-
Materials and Methods The buckling resistance, bending stiffness, ultimate torsional strength, and fracture angle under torsional load were compared for C+ file (CP, Dentsply Maillefer), M access K-file (MA, Dentsply Maillefer), Mani K-file (MN, Mani), and NiTiFlex K-file (NT, Dentsply Maillefer). The files of ISO size #15 and a shaft length of 25 mm were selected. For measuring buckling resistance (n = 10), the files were loaded in the axial direction of the shaft, and the maximum load was measured during the files' deflection. The files (n = 10) were fixed at 3-mm from the tip and then bent 45° with respect to their long axis, while the bending force was recorded by a load cell. For measuring the torsional properties, the files (n = 10) were also fixed at 3-mm, and clockwise rotations (2-rpm) were applied to the files in a straight state. The torsional load and the distortion angle were recorded until the files succumbed to the torque.
-
Results The CP was shown to require the highest load to buckle and bend the files, and the NT showed the least. While MA and MN showed similar buckling resistances, MN showed higher bending stiffness than MA. The NT had the lowest bending stiffness and ultimate torsional strength (p < 0.05).
-
Conclusions The tested instruments showed different mechanical properties depending on the evaluated parameters. CP and NT files were revealed to be the stiffest and the most flexible instruments, respectively.
Introduction
The clinical success of endodontic treatment is basically decided upon the completeness of bacterial removal.1 The root canal exploration after access opening is the initial step to minimize missing canals that contain bacterial toxins and infected tissues. Mechanical instrumentation using files is a basic procedure for achieving the purpose of root canal preparation.2 Contemporary root canal preparation using nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary files not only is easier and faster but also has a better success rate than that with handheld stainless steel (SS) instruments, as the preparation is well tapered and relatively clean with a low tendency towards aberration.3,4 However, clinicians need to establish a glide path during the initial preparation before introducing the NiTi files in order to reduce the torsional fracture of these rotary instruments.5,6,7
Unprepared root canals have minimal lumens and tight irregular conditions. Thus, the instruments usually selected for canal exploration, canal negotiation, and glide path preparation are small and flexible.8,9,10 These initial instruments should have small dimensions but possess sufficient mechanical resistance to the loads generated during the initial instrumentation. During exploration using small files, sometimes, the instruments succumb to the forces applied: this is referred to as 'buckling'.11 Instruments that have low resistance to buckling may develop elastic or plastic deformation that hinders their apical progression in the canal.12 Adequate buckling resistance may facilitate both the exploration of the canal orifices and the negotiation of the narrow canal walls.13
During the glide path preparation, the instrument is guided apically, and then, various rotational movements are applied.12,14,15 Therefore, the instruments should have adequate torsional resistance as well as adequate flexibility to minimize canal deviation and preserve the original root canal curvature.16 Recently, NiTi rotary instruments that are engine-driven have become available specifically for glide path preparation.14 However, conventional SS files are still used for the canal exploration and negotiation. While the mechanical properties of shaping instruments, particularly the NiTi rotary files, have been studied extensively, rare studies have investigated the small instruments used manually for canal exploration and negotiation.3,17,18,19,20
Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of various instruments for initial root canal preparation procedures, such as canal exploration and glide path preparation.
Materials and Methods
This study compared the buckling resistance, bending stiffness, and ultimate torsional strength, and fracture angle under torsional load were compared for C+ file (CP, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), M access K-file (MA, Dentsply Maillefer), Mani K-file (MN, Mani, Tochigi, Japan), and NiTiFlex K-file (NT, Dentsply Maillefer). Among them, NT is made of a NiTi alloy, while the others are made of SS. The ISO size of the tested files was #15, and a shaft length of 25 mm was selected.
The tests were conducted using a customized device (AEndoS, DMJ system, Busan, Korea). For measuring buckling resistance (n = 10), the instrument handle was connected to the device, and the instrument tip was placed in a small cavity prepared in a palladium metal plate. Then, the file was loaded in the axial direction of the shaft at the crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/s, while the file tip was restrained in a point location. The axial load was plotted during the loading and the file's deflection, and the maximum load was defined as the buckling resistance (Figure 1a).
The bending stiffness and the torsional resistance were measured by following the American National Standard/American Dental Association Specification No. 28 and ISO Specification 3630-1.21,22 The files (n = 10) were fixed at 3 mm from the tip and then bent 45° with respect to their long axis, while the bending moment was recorded by a load cell of the same device (Figure 1b). For measuring the torsional properties, the files (n = 10) were also fixed at 3 mm from the tip and uniform clockwise rotations at a rate of 2 rotations per minute (rpm) were applied to the files in a straight state. The torsional load and the distortion angle were recorded until the files succumbed to the torsional load.
The data were first analyzed to evaluate the assumption of normality. Then, they were analyzed statistically by using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's post-hoc comparison, to check for any differences between the groups at a significance level of 95%. All statistical analyses were conducted using the relevant statistics software (SPSS Statistics 20, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
Representative specimens of the test instruments (n = 3) were embedded in an acrylic resin (Orthodontic resin, Dentsply caulk, Milford, DE, USA) and examined using a stereomicroscope (MZ16FA, Leica, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) for the analysis of the instrument's cross-sectional design.
Results
The results for the buckling test, bending stiffness, and torsional resistance are presented in Table 1. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference in the maximum load necessary to buckle the tested instruments (p < 0.05). The CP was shown to require the highest load to buckle and bend the files, and the NT showed the least (p < 0.05). While MA and MN showed similar buckling resistances, MN showed higher bending stiffness (p < 0.05). The NT had the lowest bending stiffness and ultimate torsional strength (p < 0.05). The distortion angle until torsional failure was minimal with the CP (p < 0.05). Stereomicroscopic examination showed that the cross-sections of all instruments except NT were square. CP had the largest cross-sectional area followed by MA and MN, and NT. The NT having a triangular cross-section had the least area (Figure 2).
Discussion
Owing to the advancement of microscope dentistry, clinicians are more likely to find existing root canals and have an increased clinical success rate. After locating the canal orifices, canal exploration and negotiation should follow for chemo-mechanical preparation. During these initial procedures, the tiny constricted canal is a challenging situation. Even by using small files, sometimes, it is not possible to negotiate and pass through the sclerotic root canals. Therefore, appropriate mechanical properties are the basic necessities of the instruments to form a path to the apical area. Although nowadays many kinds of NiTi rotary instruments have been used for mechanical instrumentation, SS instruments are still used for the exploration of narrow curved canals. However, only a few studies have investigated some of the mechanical properties of these instruments.9,10,12
A sufficient buckling resistance enables clinicians to easily penetrate an existing canal, which is usually narrow and occasionally sclerotic. An instrument that is too weak cannot negotiate a tight orifice and canal area, and thus, files need to have an appropriate buckling resistance. However, sometimes, files having a strong buckling resistance are stiff, and the power of stiffness might be more than that needed clinically. The use of stiff instruments can result in some canal aberrations such as ledges and perforations during the negotiation and may then jeopardize the clinical outcome.13,23 Because small conventional K-type SS instruments (i.e., sizes #06, 08, and 10) usually show a reduced resistance to buckling, they are sometimes unable to negotiate and penetrate narrow calcified canals to the full working lengths. Hence, size #15 was selected in this study.8 By virtue of selecting size #15, NT could be included. #06, 08, and 10 NT are not commercially available (the manufacturer does not produce files smaller than #15). From the results, CP was revealed to have a sufficient buckling resistance to negotiate the orifices and for a path to the apical canal. On the other hand, NT showed a minimal buckling resistance as compared to the others. This soft tendency implies that the flexibility and elasticity of a NiTi file may help to preserve the apical canal curvature and reduce the aberrations in the apical canal.15
Small instruments, when used in the early stages of root canal shaping, are more prone to torsional fracture because they are more likely to be exposed to greater torsional stresses owing to contact with the canal.14,24 In particular, for the NiTi rotary instruments, it is highly recommended to prepare a glide path defined as a smooth radicular tunnel from the orifice of the canal to the apical terminus of the root canal.5,6,14 Blum et al. suggested that glide paths be created using small flexible SS hand files, and Berutti et al. recommended pre-flaring the root canal manually to create a glide path before using NiTi rotary instruments.6,25 For this purpose, the small instruments should have flexibility as well as torsional resistance.
From the results of the present study, we found that bending stiffness that implies flexibility and torsional resistance have opposite tendencies. Thus, the file having higher flexibility has a lower torsional resistance. CP was revealed to be the stiffest instrument among the tested groups, and NT was the most flexible. CP, in the stereomicroscopic examination, was shown to have a 4% instrument taper 4 mm from the apical tip and 2% along the rest of the shaft.12 Thus, at the test level of 3 mm from the tip, CP showed the highest bending stiffness and torsional strength because it had the largest cross-sectional area (approximately 0.045 µm2). However, CP showed the least fracture angle. Considering that high angular distortion values may serve as a safety factor for the instruments used for rotational movements because clinicians may have an extended opportunity to see the distorted instruments. In this regard, conventional SS K-files and NT are better than CP.
The instruments tested in this study were made of different metallic alloys and had different geometries including cross-section, taper, and pitch. The resultant difference can be explained by the different tapers and mechanical behaviors of the metallic alloys (SS versus NiTi). For instance, the higher buckling resistance of CP may be related to its larger taper of 4% along the apical 4-mm length. Therefore, in comparison with the other instruments, CP had greater torsional strength. On the other hand, NT had the lowest resistance to buckling and lower bending stiffness (i.e., higher flexibility), and these resulted from the fact that this system is the only instrument system made of the NiTi alloy, which has a lower modulus of elasticity than the SS alloy.12 Of course, the triangular cross-section of NT had the least cross-sectional area (approximately 0.019 µm2 for the NT and 0.026 µm2 for both MA and MN) among the tested instruments. This was the main factor leading to its least bending stiffness and buckling resistance.16,19
The torsional resistance of NT was lower than that of the other instruments evaluated in this study. Taking into account that the instruments with a lower torsional strength may have higher flexibility, during clinical rotation, the use of NT will result in minimal transportation at the apical canal that has moderate to severe curvature. Thus, it can be said that NT has better properties than CP for the apical glide path preparation. Considering the four parameters examined in this study, we found that MA has slightly close characteristics as compared to NT with less bending stiffness (i.e., higher flexibility) but with a similar buckling resistance and higher torsional strength than MN. On the other hand, MN showed the greatest distortion angle.
Similar to the other studies on instruments for the shaping procedure, further clinical and mechanical tests are recommended to verify how the geometric characteristics and the alloy influence the mechanical properties of the endodontic instruments.16,26
Conclusions
Under the conditions of this study, the mechanical properties of the instruments for canal exploration and glide path preparation are different according to the file's geometries and alloy types. In conclusion, the examined parameters in this study would be considered in explorative procedures and glide path preparations for selective usages.
Acknowledgment
The authors deny any conflicts of interest. This study was supported by 2014 Clinical Research Grant, Pusan National University Dental Hospital.
- 1. Siqueira JF Jr. Aetiology of root canal treatment failure: why well-treated teeth can fail. Int Endod J 2001;34:1-10.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 2. Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, Coil JM. Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endod Topics 2005;10:77-102.Article
- 3. Cheung GS, Liu CS. A retrospective study of endodontic treatment outcome between nickel-titanium rotary and stainless steel hand filing techniques. J Endod 2009;35:938-943.ArticlePubMed
- 4. Sonntag D, Guntermann A, Kim SK, Stachniss V. Root canal shaping with manual stainless steel files and rotary Ni-Ti files performed by students. Int Endod J 2003;36:246-255.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 5. Ha JH, Park SS. Influence of glide path on the screw-in effect and torque of nickel-titanium rotary files in simulated resin root canals. Restor Dent Endod 2012;37:215-219.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 6. Berutti E, Negro AR, Lendini M, Pasqualini D. Influence of manual preflaring and torque on the failure rate of ProTaper rotary instruments. J Endod 2004;30:228-230.ArticlePubMed
- 7. Patiño PV, Biedma BM, Liébana CR, Cantatore G, Bahillo JG. The influence of a manual glide path on the separation rate of NiTi rotary instruments. J Endod 2005;31:114-116.ArticlePubMed
- 8. Siqueira JF Jr, Lopes HP. Chemomechanical preparation. In: Siqueira JF Jr, editor. Treatment of endodontic infections. London: Quintessence Publishing; 2011. p. 236-284.
- 9. Allen MJ, Glickman GN, Griggs JA. Comparative analysis of endodontic pathfinders. J Endod 2007;33:723-726.ArticlePubMed
- 10. Lopes HP, Elias CN, Amaral G, Vieira VT, Moreira EJ, Mangelli M, Siqueira JF Jr. Torsional properties of pathfinding instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112:667-670.ArticlePubMed
- 11. Beer FP, Johnston ER, DeWolf JT, Mazurek DF. Mechanics of materials. 6th ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill; 2012. p. 631-391.
- 12. Lopes HP, Elias CN, Mangelli M, Lopes WS, Amaral G, Souza LC, Siqueira JF Jr. Buckling resistance of pathfinding endodontic instruments. J Endod 2012;38:402-404.ArticlePubMed
- 13. Jafarzadeh H, Abbott PV. Ledge formation: review of a great challenge in endodontics. J Endod 2007;33:1155-1162.ArticlePubMed
- 14. Berutti E, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, Chiandussi G, Pera F, Migliaretti G, Pasqualini D. Use of nickel-titanium rotary PathFile to create the glide path: comparison with manual preflaring in simulated root canals. J Endod 2009;35:408-412.ArticlePubMed
- 15. Nakagawa RK, Alves JL, Buono VT, Bahia MG. Flexibility and torsional behaviour of rotary nickel-titanium PathFile, RaCe ISO 10, Scout RaCe and stainless steel K-File hand instruments. Int Endod J 2014;47:290-297.PubMed
- 16. Kim TO, Cheung GS, Lee JM, Kim BM, Hur B, Kim HC. Stress distribution of three NiTi rotary files under bending and torsional conditions using a mathematic analysis. Int Endod J 2009;42:14-21.ArticlePubMed
- 17. Cheung GS, Shen Y, Darvell BW. Effect of environment on low-cycle fatigue of a nickel-titanium instrument. J Endod 2007;33:1433-1437.ArticlePubMed
- 18. Kramkowski TR, Bahcall J. An in vitro comparison of torsional stress and cyclic fatigue resistance of ProFile GT and ProFile GT Series X rotary nickel-titanium files. J Endod 2009;35:404-407.ArticlePubMed
- 19. Yum J, Cheung GS, Park JK, Hur B, Kim HC. Torsional strength and toughness of nickel-titanium rotary files. J Endod 2011;37:382-386.ArticlePubMed
- 20. Cho OI, Versluis A, Cheung GS, Ha JH, Hur B, Kim HC. Cyclic fatigue resistance tests of Nickel-Titanium rotary files using simulated canal and weight loading conditions. Restor Dent Endod 2013;38:31-35.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 21. ISO-Standards ISO 3630-1 Dental root canal instruments. Part 1: files, reamers, barbed broaches, rasps, paste carriers, explorers and cotton broaches. Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 1992.
- 22. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipment. Revised American National Standards Institute/ American Dental Association Specification no. 28 for root canal files and reamers, type K. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;104:506.ArticlePubMed
- 23. Gutmann JL, Lovdahl PE. Problem Solving in Endodontics. Prevention, Identification, and Management. 5th ed. Maryland Heights, MO: Elsevier/Mosby; 2011. p. 195-208.
- 24. West JD. The endodontic glidepath: 'secrets to rotary satety'. Dent Today 2010;29:86. 88. 90-93.
- 25. Blum JY, Machtou P, Ruddle C, Micallef JP. Analysis of mechanical preparations in extracted teeth using ProTaper rotary instruments: value of the safety quotient. J Endod 2003;29:567-575.ArticlePubMed
- 26. Lee MH, Versluis A, Kim BM, Lee CJ, Hur B, Kim HC. Correlation between experimental cyclic fatigue resistance and numerical stress analysis for nickel-titanium rotary files. J Endod 2011;37:1152-1157.ArticlePubMed
REFERENCES
Tables & Figures
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
- Buckling resistance of various pathfinding endodontic instruments: An in vitro study
Ujjwal Das, Rajesh Kumar Das, Kallol Kumar Saha, Lugu Buru Murmu, Srimanta Banerjee, Rishila Nag
Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics.2025; 28(4): 384. CrossRef - Comparison of torsional, bending, and buckling resistances of different nickel-titanium glide path files
Feyyaz Çeliker, İrem Çetinkaya
Matéria (Rio de Janeiro).2024;[Epub] CrossRef - Comparative Analysis of Endodontic 0.15 Stainless-Steel K-Files: Exploring Design, Composition, and Mechanical Performance
Abayomi Omokeji Baruwa, Filipa Chasqueira, Sofia Arantes-Oliveira, João Caramês, Duarte Marques, Jaime Portugal, Jorge N. R. Martins
Dentistry Journal.2024; 12(2): 29. CrossRef - Comparative Analysis of Endodontic ISO Size 06, 08, and 10 Stainless Steel K-Files Used for Glide Path Procedures
Abayomi Omokeji Baruwa, Filipa Chasqueira, Sofia Arantes-Oliveira, João Caramês, Duarte Marques, Jaime Portugal, Jorge N. R. Martins
Dentistry Journal.2024; 12(4): 98. CrossRef - Glide Path in Endodontics: A Literature Review of Current Knowledge
Vlad Mircea Lup, Giulia Malvicini, Carlo Gaeta, Simone Grandini, Gabriela Ciavoi
Dentistry Journal.2024; 12(8): 257. CrossRef - Shaping Ability and Buckling Resistance of TruNatomy, WaveOne gold, and XP-Endo Shaper Single-File Systems
Neveen Ali Shaheen, Nahla Gamal Eldin Elhelbawy
Contemporary Clinical Dentistry.2022; 13(3): 261. CrossRef - A comparison of different hand and rotary endodontic glide path files for buckling resistance
Ruchika Gupta, Pramod Mohite, Suvarna Patil, Nandita Bansal
Endodontology.2021; 33(2): 102. CrossRef - Buckling Resistance of Various Nickel-Titanium Glide Path Preparation Instruments in Dynamic or Static Mode
Jung-Hong Ha, Sang Won Kwak, Antheunis Versluis, Hyeon-Cheol Kim
Journal of Endodontics.2020; 46(8): 1125. CrossRef - Influence of heat treatment on color and flexibility of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments
Bernardo Corrêa de ALMEIDA, Carlos Nelson ELIAS
RGO - Revista Gaúcha de Odontologia.2020;[Epub] CrossRef - Influence of Negotiation, Glide Path, and Preflaring Procedures on Root Canal Shaping—Terminology, Basic Concepts, and a Systematic Review
Gianluca Plotino, Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Frederic Bukiet, Nicola M. Grande, Sajesh K. Veettil, Gustavo De-Deus, Hany Mohamed Aly Ahmed
Journal of Endodontics.2020; 46(6): 707. CrossRef - Comparative evaluation of buckling resistance of Proglider and One-G file: An in vitro study
Priyanka Himmatrao Patil, Meenal Nitin Gulve, Swapnil Janardan Kolhe
Endodontology.2018; 30(1): 21. CrossRef - Mechanical Properties of Various Heat-treated Nickel-titanium Rotary Instruments
Hye-Jin Goo, Sang Won Kwak, Jung-Hong Ha, Eugenio Pedullà, Hyeon-Cheol Kim
Journal of Endodontics.2017; 43(11): 1872. CrossRef - Debris extrusion by glide-path establishing endodontic instruments with different geometries
Jung-Hong Ha, Sung Kyo Kim, Sang Won Kwak, Rashid El Abed, Yong Chul Bae, Hyeon-Cheol Kim
Journal of Dental Sciences.2016; 11(2): 136. CrossRef
ePub Link
Cite
XML DownloadBuckling resistance, bending stiffness, and torsional resistance of various instruments for canal exploration and glide path preparation
Figure 1 Test designs of (a) buckling resistance; (b) bending stiffness; (c) torsional resistance.
Figure 2 Stereomicroscopic images of (a) C+ file; (b) M access K-file; (c) Mani K-file; (d) NiTiFlex K-file (left column, cross-sections at 3 mm from the tip; right column, lateral aspects at the apical part).
Figure 1
Figure 2
Buckling resistance, bending stiffness, and torsional resistance of various instruments for canal exploration and glide path preparation
Mechanical behavior under torsional load (ultimate strength and fracture angle), bending stiffness, and Buckling resistance (mean ± standard deviation)
a,b,c,dGroups with different superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference between instruments (p < 0.05).
Table 1 Mechanical behavior under torsional load (ultimate strength and fracture angle), bending stiffness, and Buckling resistance (mean ± standard deviation)
a,b,c,dGroups with different superscript letters indicate a statistically significant difference between instruments (
