Cyclic fatigue resistance of 3 different nickel-titanium reciprocating instruments in artificial canals

Introduction The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cyclic fatigue resistance of 3 different nickel-titanium reciprocating instruments. Methods A total of 45 nickel-titanium instruments were tested and divided into 3 experimental groups (n = 15): group 1, WaveOne Primary instruments; group 2, Reciproc R25 instruments; and group 3, Twisted File (TF) Adaptive M-L1 instruments. The instruments were then subjected to cyclic fatigue test on a static model consisting of a metal block with a simulated canal with 60° angle of curvature and a 5-mm radius of curvature. WaveOne Primary, Reciproc R25, and TF Adaptive instruments were activated by using their proprietary movements, WaveOne ALL, Reciproc ALL, and TF Adaptive, respectively. All instruments were activated until fracture occurred, and the time to fracture was recorded visually for each file with a 1/100-second chronometer. Mean number of cycles to failure and standard deviations were calculated for each group, and data were statistically analyzed (P <.05). Instruments were also observed through scanning electron microscopy to evaluate type of fracture. Results Cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc R25 and TF Adaptive M-L1 was significantly higher than that of WaveOne Primary (P =.009 and P =.002, respectively). The results showed no statistically significant difference between TF Adaptive M-L1 and Reciproc R25 (P =.686). Analysis of the fractured portion under scanning electron microscopy indicated that all instruments showed morphologic characteristics of ductile fracture that were due to accumulation of metal fatigue. Conclusions No statistically significant differences were found between the instruments tested except for WaveOne Primary, which showed the lowest resistance to cyclic fatigue.