Rotary Nickel-Titanium Instruments: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine
Contributor:
Myint Thu

Nickel–titanium alloy (Ni-Ti) rotary instruments must exert torque to cut and eradicate septic dentin during canal preparation; torsional stress, associated with friction between the instrument and dentin wall, accumulates in the instruments.

  • dynamic torsional test
  • force
  • nickel-titanium rotary instrument
  • root canal preparation
  • screw-in tendency
  • torque

1. Introduction

Nickel–titanium alloy (Ni-Ti) rotary instruments must exert torque to cut and eradicate septic dentin during canal preparation; torsional stress, associated with friction between the instrument and dentin wall, accumulates in the instruments [1][2]. The accumulated stress can be retained as residual stress—plastic deformation—after withdrawal of the instrument from the canal if the stress exceeds the elastic limit [3]. The engagement of rotary instruments, especially those with spiral-shaped active cutting edges, with the dentin wall can generate apically-directed screw-in forces, causing the instrument to become locked in the canal [4]. When this occurs, additional torque is required for the instrument to continue rotating. Thus, torsional stress is instantly accumulated in the instrument, leading to torsional fracture [5][6], which is dissimilar to cyclic fatigue fracture caused by the repeated tension/compression stresses at the curvature [7]. Furthermore, screw-in forces may cause the instrument to engage beyond the apical foramen [8] and result in the extrusion of microbes into periapical tissue [9], root weakening, and cracks in the apical area [10].

Numerous studies have been conducted to examine the dynamic torque and force characteristics of Ni-Ti instrument systems to identify factors having an impact on the stress generated within the rotary instruments. Though potential influencing factors, such as instrument pitch length [11][12][13][14] and instrument rake angle [11][15], have been discussed and debated, no single-most important factor has been identified. Thus, there continues to be debate on how the stress generated within Ni-Ti instruments during root canal instrumentation can be limited to a level at which clinical safety is ensured.

2. Data, Model, Applications and Influences

As shown in Figure 1, 4096 articles were identified. After duplicates were removed and preliminary screening was conducted, 75 articles underwent full-text review. Fifty-two studies (Table 1) were eligible for inclusion.

Applsci 11 03079 g001 550

Figure 1. Summary of the search processs.

Table 1. Summary of reviewed studies analyzing torque and force generated by nickel-titanium rotary instruments during root canal preparation.

Author/Year Type of Study Type of Sample Instrument Preparation Technique Result
Blum et al., 1999 [16] In vitro Mandibular incisors ProFile Step-back & crown-down Students > Endodontist (T)
Students < Endodontist (F)
Step-back > crown-down
Blum et al., 1999 [17] In vitro Mandibular incisors ProFile Step-back & crown-down Contact area- 10 mm (Step-back) and 5 mm (crown-down) from the tip
Step-back > crown-down (T & F)
Sattapan et al., 2000 [18] In vitro Maxillary/mandibular central and lateral incisors Quantec Series 2000 Single file Small canal > medium canal
Peters et al., 2002 [19] In vitro Extracted human teeth/plastic blocks Profile Crown-down Straight canal blocks > curved canal blocks > natural teeth (T)
Curved canal blocks > natural teeth > straight canal blocks (F)
Peters et al., 2003 [20] In vitro Maxillary molars ProTaper Single-length F3 > F2 > F1 > S1 > S2 (T)
F3 > S1 > F2 > F1 > S2 (F)
Blum et al., 2003 [21] In vitro Maxillary central incisors/ mandibular central or lateral incisors ProTaper Single-Length Narrow canal > large canal (T)
Large canal > narrow canal (F)
Hübscher et al., 2003 [22] In vitro Maxillary molars FlexMaster Crown-down-like modified sequence Constricted canal > wide canal (T & F)
Diemer et al., 2004 [13] In vitro Resin blocks Hero Single file Shorter pitch length > longer pitch length (T & F)
Da Silva et al., 2005 [23] In vitro Maxillary/mandibular central and lateral incisors Race 720, Race 721, Profile Single-length Profile > Race 720 > Race 721 (T & F)
Schrader et al., 2005 [24] In vitro Plastic blocks Profile Crown-down 35/0.04 had peak T and F in 4% taper sequence
40/0.06 and 35/0.04 had peak T and F in combination of 4% and 6% taper, respectively
Peters et al., 2005 [25] In vitro Dentin discs ProFile, ProTaper Single file Glyde > Control > EDTA > H2O for ProFile (T)
Glyde > H2O > EDTA > Control for ProTaper (T)
Glyde > H2O > Control > EDTA for ProFile (F)
Control > H2O > Glyde > EDTA for ProTaper (F)
ProTaper > ProFile (T)
ProFile > ProTaper (F)
Boessler et al., 2007 [26] In vitro Dentin discs ProFile Single file Dry Control > NaOCL 1% > H2O > HEPB 18% (T)
Dry Control > H2O > NaOCL 1% > HEPB 18% (F)
Boessler et al., 2009 [27] In vitro Dentin discs ProTaper Single-length Electropolished > machined (T)
Machined > electropolished (F)
Diop et al., 2009 [28] In vitro Human cadaveric mandivular central/lateral incisors ProTaper Single file Apical > coronal (T & F)
Right > left (F)
Posterior > anterior (F)
Ha et al., 2010 [15] In vitro Resin blocks K3, Mtwo, NRT, ProFile, ProTaper Single file ProTaper > K3 > NRT-safe tip > NRT-active tip > Mtwo > ProFile (F)
Son et al., 2010 [29] In vitro Resin blocks ProTaper, ProFile Single-length 0° > 10° > 20° > 30° canal curvature (F)
Sung et al., 2010 [30] In vitro Resin blocks ProFile, GT rotary, K3 Single-length Greater taper > smaller taper (F)
Bardsley et al., 2011 [31] In vitro Plastic blocks Vortex Crown-down 200 rpm > 400 rpm > 600 rpm (T & F)
Peters et al., 2012 [32] In vitro Plastic blocks Hyflex CM Single-length & crown-down Single-length > crown-down (T & F)
Ha et al., 2012 [8] In vitro Endo-training blocks PathFile, NiTiFlex, ProTaper Single file #13 > #15 > #18 > #20 (T & F)
Diemer et al., 2013 [33] In vitro Resin blocks HeroShaper, Prototypes Single file H6 > H0 > H4 (T)
H0 > H6 > H4 (F)
Pereira et al., 2013 [34] In vitro Plastic blocks ProTaper Next Single-length 250 rpm > 300 rpm > 350 rpm (T & F)
Arias et al., 2014 [35] In vitro Maxillary incisors/mandibular molars ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal Single-length Small canals > large canals (T & F)
Pereira et al., 2015 [36] In vitro Plastic blocks ProTaper Universal, Profile Vortex, Vortex Blue, Typhoon Infinite Flex Single-length Typhoon > ProTaper Universal > Vortex Blue > ProFile Vortex (T)
ProTaper Universal > ProFile Vortex > Vortex Blue > Typhoon (F)
Ha et al., 2015 [9] In vitro Resin block G-1, G-2, uG glide path files Single file G-2 > uG > G-1 (F)
Peixoto et al., 2015 [11] In vitro Acrylic blocks Mtwo, Race, ProTaper Universal Single file ProTaper Universal > Race > Mtwo (T)
ProTaper Universal > Mtwo > Race (F)
Arias et al., 2016 [37] In vitro Mandibular molars PathFile, ProGlider Single-length & Single file PathFile 1 > PathFile 2 > ProGlider (T & F)
ProGlider (16/.02, single file) > PathFile (16/.02, Sequence) (T & F)
Moreinos et al., 2016 [38] In vitro Simulated metal block canal Gentlefile, ProTaper Next, Revo-S Single-length ProTaper X1 > Revo-S SC2 > Gentlefile 1 (F)
Revo-S SC3 > ProTaper X2 > Gentlefile 2 (F)
Kwak et al., 2016 [14] In vitro Resin blocks OneG, pG, OneG heat-treated, pG heat-treated glide path files Single file pG > OneG > OneG heat-treated > pG heat-treated (F)
Ha et al., 2016 [4] In vitro Resin blocks Mtwo, Reciproc 25, ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next Single file Reciproc 25 > ProTaper Universal > ProTaper Next > Mtwo (F)
Jamleh et al., 2016 [39] In vitro Premolar teeth Twisted File, Twisted File Adaptive, ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next Single-length ProTaper Universal > ProTaper Next > Twisted File > Twisted File Adaptive (L)
Arias et al., 2017 [40] In vitro Mandibular molars PathFile, ProGlider, ProTaper Gold Single-length Glide path reduced the torque of shaping files
Tokita et al., 2017 [41] In vitro Resin canal models Twisted File Adaptive Single-length CR > torque-sensitive reciprocation > time-dependent reciprocation (T)
Time-dependent reciprocation > CR > torque-sensitive reciprocation (F)
Ha et al., 2017 [42] In vitro Resin Canals One G Single-length 4/6 pecking depath > 2/4 pecking depath (F)
Fukumori et al., 2018 [43] In vitro Resin canals EndoWave Single file EndoWave (30/0.06) > EndoWave (30/0.04) (T & F)
Kwak et al., 2018 [44] In vitro Resin blocks WaveOne, WaveOne Gold Single file WaveOne > WaveOne Gold (T)
Without Glide Path > with Glide Path (T)
Jamleh et al., 2018 [45] In vitro Maxillary premolar teeth WaveOne, WaveOne Gold Single file WaveOne > WaveOne Gold (F)
Nishijo et al., 2018 [46] In vitro Endo training blocks Hyflex EDM Glide Path File (EDM), Hyflex GPF, Scout Race (Race) Single file Hyflex EDM Glide Path File > GPF > Race (CR) (F)
Hyflex EDM Glide Path File > Race > Hyflex GPF (Reciprocation) (F)
Gambarini et al., 2019 [47] In vitro Maxillary anterior teeth Twisted File Single file Inward pecking motion > outward brushing motion (T)
Abu-Tahun et al., 2019 [48] In vitro Resin canals One G, Hyflex EDM Single file No glide path > 5 insertions > 10 insertions > 15 insertions > 20 insertions (T)
Kwak et al., 2019 [49] In vitro Resin blocks ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Gold, WaveOne, WaveOne Gold Single-length & Single file ProTaper Universal > WaveOne > ProTaper Gold > WaveOne Gold (F)
Nayak et al., 2019 [50] In vitro Resin blocks WaveOne Gold, Self-adjusting file, 2Shape Single-length &single file WaveOne Gold > 2Shape 2 > 2Shape 1 > self-adjusting file (F)
Kwak et al., 2019 [51] In vitro Resin blocks K3XF, Twisted File Adaptive Single-length K3XF (CR) > K3XF (adaptive motion) > TFA (adaptive motion) (T)
Maki et al., 2019 [52] In vitro Resin canal blocks ProTaper Next Single-length High and/or medium-speed > low-speed (clockwise T)
High-speed > medium-speed > low-speed (F)
Gambarini et al., 2019 [53] In vivo Double-rooted maxillary premolars ProTaper Next, EdgeFile Single-length ProTaper Next > EdgeFile (T & preparation time)
Bürklein et al., 2019 [54] In vitro Maxillary incisors K-flexofile stainless steel, F6 SkyTaper & EndoPilot, DentaPort ZX OTR, VDW.silver Balanced-force, single-length Balanced-force > rotary (F)
Rotary > balanced-force (T)
No significant differences among 3 motors (T)
Almeida et al., 2020 [12] In vitro Acrylic blocks ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal Single-length ProTaper Next X2 > ProTaper Next X1 > ProTaper Universal S1 > ProTaper Universal F1 (T)
ProTaper Next X1 > ProTaper Universal S2 > ProTaper Next X2 > ProTaper Universal F1 (F)
Maki et al., 2020 [55] In vitro Resin blocks Reciproc, Reciproc Blue Single file Reciproc > Reciproc Blue (T & F)
Lee et al., 2020 [3] In vitro Molars ProTaper Next, One Curve, Hyflex EDM, Twisted File Adaptive Single-length CR > adaptive motion (T)
Hyflex EDM > One Curve > ProTaper Next > Twisted File Adaptive (T)
Htun et al., 2020 [56] In vitro Mandibular incisors Hyflex EDM glide path file, stainless steel K-file Single file CR > OGP > stainless steel manual (T in positive domain)
CR > stainless steel manual > OGP (T in negative domain)
OGP > stainless steel manual > CR (F in positive domain)
OGP > CR > stainless steel manual (F in negative domain)
Kimura et al., 2020 [57] In vitro Resin blocks Endowave Single file, crown-down Single file (CR) > single file (OTR) (clockwise & counterclockwise T)
crown-down (CR) > crown-down (OTR) (clockwise T)
crown-down (OTR) > crown-down (CR) (counterclockwise T)
Peters et al., 2020 [58] In vitro Plastic blocks TruNatomy, ProTaper Next Single-length ProTaper Next X2 > ProTaper Next X3 > ProTaper Next X1 > TruNatomy 36 > TruNatomy 26 > TruNatomy 20 (T)
ProTaper Next X1 > ProTaper Next X2 > ProTaper Next X3 > TruNatomy 36 > TruNatomy 26 > TruNatomy 20 (F)

From these studies, we identified the following 26 factors that influence Ni-Ti rotary instrument torque and force: type of sample [19], canal curvature [19][29], cross-sectional design [11][15][33][49][53], taper [53], blade [15], pitch length [11][12][13][14][15], helix angle [13][15][49], rake angle [11][12][15], cutting efficiency [11][12], instrument size [9][11][12][43][16][30], glide-path preparation [44][40], canal size [35][18][20][21][22], contact area [17][24], preparation technique [8][16][17][24][23][37][31][32][57], preparation time [53][54], insertion depth [19][16][18][20][21][22][17][24][23][37][31][32][57][28][34][52][36][58][42], insertion rate [34][48], displacement [28], motor [54], kinematics [3][4][49][57][41][56][51][46][39][50], operative motion [47], rotational speed [31][34], pecking speed [52], lubricant [25][26], experience of the operators [16], and metallurgy [14][49][53][36][58][46][27][55][45][38].

Pro-branded systems, such as ProFile, ProTaper Next, ProTaper and ProTaper Universal, were most frequently investigated (Figure 2). The highest numbers of articles were published in 2019 and in the first half of 2020 (Figure 3), and 48% of the articles included in this review were published in Journal of Endodontics (Figure 4).

Applsci 11 03079 g002 550

Figure 2. Instrument systems used in the studies included in the review.

Applsci 11 03079 g003 550

Figure 3. Publication year of the articles included in the review.

Applsci 11 03079 g004 550

Figure 4. Journals in which articles included in the review were published (by percentage). “Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H” refers to “Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine”.

The main findings obtained from the present systematic review can be summarized as: Higher torque or force generation was related to convex triangle cross-sectional design, regressive taper, short pitch length, large instrument size, small canal size, single-length preparation technique, long preparation time, deep insertion depth, low rate of insertion, continuous rotation (torque), reciprocating motion (force), lower rotational speed and conventional alloy.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/app11073079

References

  1. Yum, J.; Cheung, G.S.-P.; Park, J.-K.; Hur, B.; Kim, H.-C. Torsional strength and toughness of nickel-titanium rotary files. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 382–386.
  2. Park, S.-Y.; Cheung, G.S.P.; Yum, J.; Hur, B.; Park, J.-K.; Kim, H.-C. Dynamic torsional resistance of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J. Endod. 2010, 36, 1200–1204.
  3. Lee, J.Y.; Kwak, S.W.; Ha, J.-H.; Kim, H.-C. Ex-vivo comparison of torsional stress on nickel–titanium instruments activated by continuous rotation or adaptive motion. Materials 2020, 13, 1900.
  4. Ha, J.-H.; Kwak, S.W.; Kim, S.-K.; Kim, H.-C. Screw-in forces during instrumentation by various file systems. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2016, 41, 304–309.
  5. Park, H. A comparison of Greater Taper files, ProFiles, and stainless steel files to shape curved root canals. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2001, 91, 715–718.
  6. Yared, G.M.; Dagher, F.E.B.; Machtou, P. Influence of rotational speed, torque and operator’s proficiency on ProFile failures. Int. Endod. J. 2001, 34, 47–53.
  7. Palma, P.J.; Messias, A.; Cerqueira, A.R.; Tavares, L.D.; Caramelo, F.; Roseiro, L.; Santos, J.M. Cyclic fatigue resistance of three rotary file systems in a dynamic model after immersion in sodium hypochlorite. Odontology 2019, 107, 324–332.
  8. Ha, J.-H.; Park, S.-S. 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.
  9. Ha, J.-H.; Lee, C.-J.; Kwak, S.-W.; Abed, R.E.; Ha, D.; Kim, H.-C. Geometric optimization for development of glide path preparation nickel-titanium rotary instrument. J. Endod. 2015, 41, 916–919.
  10. Adorno, C.G.; Yoshioka, T.; Suda, H. Crack initiation on the apical root surface caused by three different nickel-titanium rotary files at different working lengths. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 522–525.
  11. da Cunha Peixoto, I.F.; Pereira, É.S.J.; Aun, D.P.; Buono, V.T.L.; de Azevedo Bahia, M.G. Constant insertion rate methodology for measuring torque and apical force in 3 nickel-titanium instruments with different cross-sectional designs. J. Endod. 2015, 41, 1540–1544.
  12. Almeida, G.; Aun, D.P.; Resende, P.D.; da Cunha Peixoto, I.F.; Viana, A.C.D.; Buono, V.T.L.; Bahia, M.G. Comparative analysis of torque and apical force to assess the cutting behaviour of protaper next and protaper universal endodontic instruments. Aust. Endod. J. 2020, 46, 52–59.
  13. Diemer, F.; Calas, P. Effect of pitch length on the behavior of rotary triple helix root canal instruments. J. Endod. 2004, 30, 716–718.
  14. Kwak, S.W.; Ha, J.-H.; Lee, C.-J.; Abed, R.E.; Abu-Tahun, I.H.; Kim, H.-C. Effects of pitch length and heat treatment on the mechanical properties of the glide path preparation instruments. J. Endod. 2016, 42, 788–792.
  15. Ha, J.-H.; Jin, M.-U.; Kim, Y.-K.; Kim, S.-K. Comparison of screw-in effect for several nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated resin root canal. J. Korean Acad. Conserv. Dent. 2010, 35, 267–272.
  16. Blum, J.Y.; Cohen, A.; Machtou, P.; Micallef, J.P. Analysis of forces developed during mechanical preparation of extracted teeth using Profile NiTi rotary instruments. Int. Endod. J. 1999, 32, 24–31.
  17. Blum, J.-Y.; Machtou, P.; Micallef, J.-P. Location of contact areas on rotary Profile® instruments in relationship to the forces developed during mechanical preparation on extracted teeth. Int. Endod. J. 1999, 32, 108–114.
  18. Sattapan, B.; Palamara, J.E.; Messer, H.H. Torque during canal instrumentation using rotary nickel-titanium files. J. Endod. 2000, 26, 156–160.
  19. Peters, O.A.; Barbakow, F. Dynamic torque and apical forces of profile .04 rotary instruments during preparation of curved canals. Int. Endod. J. 2002, 35, 379–389.
  20. Peters, O.A.; Peters, C.I.; Schönenberger, K.; Barbakow, F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: Assessment of torque and force in relation to canal anatomy. Int. Endod. J. 2003, 36, 93–99.
  21. Blum, J.-Y.; Machtou, P.; Ruddle, C.; Micallef, J.P. Analysis of mechanical preparations in extracted teeth using protaper rotary instruments: Value of the safety quotient. J. Endod. 2003, 29, 567–575.
  22. Hübscher, W.; Barbakow, F.; Peters, O.A. Root canal preparation with FlexMaster: Asessment of torque and force in relation to canal anatomy. Int. Endod. J. 2003, 36, 883–890.
  23. Silva, F.M.D.; Kobayashi, C.; Suda, H. Analysis of forces developed during mechanical preparation of extracted teeth using race rotary instruments and profiles. Int. Endod. J. 2005, 38, 17–21.
  24. Schrader, C.; Peters, O. Analysis of torque and force with differently tapered rotary endodontic instruments in vitro. J. Endod. 2005, 31, 120–123.
  25. Peters, O.A.; Boessler, C.; Zehnder, M. Effect of liquid and past-type lubricants on torque values during simulated rotary root canal instrumentation. Int. Endod. J. 2005, 38, 223–229.
  26. Boessler, C.; Peters, O.A.; Zehnder, M. Impact of lubricant parameters on rotary instrument torque and force. J. Endod. 2007, 33, 280–283.
  27. Boessler, C.; Paque, F.; Peters, O.A. The effect of electropolishing on torque and force during simulated root canal preparation with ProTaper shaping files. J. Endod. 2009, 35, 102–106.
  28. Diop, A.; Maurel, N.; Oiknine, M.; Patoor, E.; Machtou, P. A novel platform for in vitro analysis of torque, forces, and three-dimensional file displacements during root canal preparations: Application to ProTaper rotary files. J. Endod. 2009, 35, 568–572.
  29. Son, J.-Y.; Ha, J.-H.; Kim, Y.-K. Influence of root canal curvature on the screw-in effect of nickel-titanium rotary files in simulated resin root canal. J. Korean Acad. Conserv. Dent. 2010, 35, 374–379.
  30. Sung, H.-J.; Ha, J.-H.; Kim, S.-K. Influence of taper on the screw-in effect of nickel-titanium rotary files in simulated resin root canal. J. Korean Acad. Conserv. Dent. 2010, 35, 380–386.
  31. Bardsley, S.; Peters, C.I.; Peters, O.A. The effect of three rotational speed settings on torque and apical force with vortex rotary instruments in vitro. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 860–864.
  32. Peters, O.A.; Gluskin, A.K.; Weiss, R.A.; Han, J.T. An in vitro assessment of the physical properties of novel Hyflex nickel–titanium rotary instruments. Int. Endod. J. 2012, 45, 1027–1034.
  33. Diemer, F.; Michetti, J.; Mallet, J.-P.; Piquet, R. Effect of asymmetry on the behavior of prototype rotary triple helix root canal instruments. J. Endod. 2013, 39, 829–832.
  34. Pereira, E.S.J.; Singh, R.; Arias, A.; Peters, O.A. In vitro assessment of torque and force generated by novel protaper next instruments during simulated canal preparation. J. Endod. 2013, 39, 1615–1619.
  35. Arias, A.; Singh, R.; Peters, O.A. Torque and force induced by ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next during shaping of large and small root canals in extracted teeth. J. Endod. 2014, 40, 973–976.
  36. Pereira, É.S.J.; Viana, A.C.D.; Buono, V.T.L.; Peters, O.A.; de Azevedo Bahia, M.G. Behavior of nickel-titanium instruments manufactured with different thermal treatments. J. Endod. 2015, 41, 67–71.
  37. Arias, A.; Singh, R.; Peters, O.A. Differences in torsional performance of single- and multiple-instrument rotary systems for glide path preparation. Odontology 2016, 104, 192–198.
  38. Moreinos, D.; Dakar, A.; Stone, N.J.; Moshonov, J. Evaluation of time to fracture and vertical forces applied by a novel Gentlefile system for root canal preparation in simulated root canals. J. Endod. 2016, 42, 505–508.
  39. Jamleh, A.; Alfouzan, K. Vertical load induced with twisted file adaptive system during canal shaping. J. Endod. 2016, 42, 1811–1814.
  40. Arias, A.; de Vasconcelos, R.A.; Hernández, A.; Peters, O.A. Torsional performance of ProTaper Gold rotary instruments during shaping of small root canals after 2 different glide path preparations. J. Endod. 2017, 43, 447–451.
  41. Tokita, D.; Ebihara, A.; Nishijo, M.; Miyara, K.; Okiji, T. Dynamic torque and vertical force analysis during nickel-titanium rotary root canal preparation with different modes of reciprocal rotation. J. Endod. 2017, 43, 1706–1710.
  42. Ha, J.-H.; Kwak, S.W.; Sigurdsson, A.; Chang, S.W.; Kim, S.K.; Kim, H.-C. Stress generation during pecking motion of rotary nickel-titanium instruments with different pecking depth. J. Endod. 2017, 43, 1688–1691.
  43. Fukumori, Y.; Nishijyo, M.; Tokita, D.; Miyara, K.; Ebihara, A.; Okiji, T. Comparative analysis of mechanical properties of differently tapered nickeltitanium endodontic rotary instruments. Dent. Mater. J. 2018, 37, 667–674.
  44. Kwak, S.W.; Ha, J.-H.; Cheung, G.S.-P.; Kim, H.-C.; Kim, S.K. Effect of the glide path establishment on the torque generation to the files during instrumentation: An in vitro measurement. J. Endod. 2018, 44, 496–500.
  45. Jamleh, A.; Alfadley, A.; Alfouzan, K. Vertical force induced with WaveOne and WaveOne Gold systems during canal shaping. J. Endod. 2018, 44, 1412–1415.
  46. Nishijo, M.; Ebihara, A.; Tokita, D.; Doi, H.; Hanawa, T.; Okiji, T. Evaluation of selected mechanical properties of niti rotary glide path files manufactured from controlled memory wires. Dent. Mater. J. 2018, 37, 549–554.
  47. Gambarini, G.; Seracchiani, M.; Piasecki, L.; Obino, F.V.; Galli, M.; Nardo, D.D.; Testarelli, L. Measurement of torque generated during intracanal instrumentation in vivo. Int. Endod. J. 2019, 52, 737–745.
  48. Tahun, I.H.A.; Kwak, S.W.; Ha, J.-H.; Sigurdsson, A.; Kayahan, M.B.; Kim, H.-C. Effective establishment of glide-path to reduce torsional stress during nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation. Materials 2019, 12, 493.
  49. Kwak, S.W.; Lee, C.-J.; Kim, S.K.; Kim, H.-C.; Ha, J.-H. Comparison of screw-in forces during movement of endodontic files with different geometries, alloys, and kinetics. Materials 2019, 12, 1506.
  50. Nayak, A.; Kankar, P.; Jain, P.K.; Jain, N. Force and vibration generated in apical direction by three endodontic files of different kinematics during simulated canal preparation: An in vitro analytical study. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 2019, 233, 839–848.
  51. Kwak, S.W.; Ha, J.-H.; Cheung, G.S.-P.; Kim, S.K.; Kim, H.-C. Comparison of in vitro torque generation during instrumentation with adaptive versus continuous movement. J. Endod. 2019, 45, 803–807.
  52. Maki, K.; Ebihara, A.; Kimura, S.; Nishijo, M.; Tokita, D.; Okiji, T. Effect of different speeds of up-and-down motion on canal centering ability and vertical force and torque generation of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J. Endod. 2019, 45, 68–72.e1.
  53. Gambarini, G.; Galli, M.; Seracchiani, M.; Nardo, D.D.; Versiani, M.; Piasecki, L.; Testarelli, L. In vivo evaluation of operative torque generated by two nickel-titanium rotary instruments during root canal preparation. Eur. J. Dent. 2019, 13, 556–562.
  54. Bürklein, S.; Stüber, J.P.; Schäfer, E. Real-time dynamic torque values and axial forces during preparation of straight root canals using three different endodontic motors and hand preparation. Int. Endod. J. 2019, 52, 94–104.
  55. Maki, K.; Ebihara, A.; Kimura, S.; Nishijo, M.; Tokita, D.; Miyara, K.; Okiji, T. Enhanced root canal-centering ability and reduced screw-in force generation of reciprocating nickel-titanium instruments with a post-machining thermal treatment. Dent. Mater. J. 2020, 39, 251–255.
  56. Htun, P.H.; Ebihara, A.; Maki, K.; Kimura, S.; Nishijo, M.; Tokita, D.; Okiji, T. Comparison of torque, force generation and canal shaping ability between manual and nickel-titanium glide path instruments in rotary and optimum glide path motion. Odontology 2020, 108, 188–193.
  57. Kimura, S.; Ebihara, A.; Maki, K.; Nishijo, M.; Tokita, D.; Okiji, T. Effect of optimum torque reverse motion on torque and force generation during root canal instrumentation with crown-down and single-length techniques. J. Endod. 2020, 46, 232–237.
  58. Peters, O.A.; Arias, A.; Choi, A. Mechanical properties of a novel nickel-titanium root canal instrument: Stationary and dynamic tests. J. Endod. 2020, 46, 994–1001.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback