• Emmanuel João Nogueira Leal Silva, Victor Talarico Leal Vieira, Felipe Gonçalves Belladonna, Arthur de Siqueira Zuolo, Henrique Dos Santos Antunes, Daniele Moreira Cavalcante, Carlos Nelson Elias, and Gustavo De-Deus.
• Department of Endodontics, Grande Rio University, Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Electronic address: nogueiraemmanuel@hotmail.com.
• J Endod. 2018 Jan 1; 44 (1): 168-172.

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the cyclic and torsional fatigue resistance of the XP-endo Shaper (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) and TRUShape (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) instruments.MethodsTwenty XP-endo Shaper (30/0.01) instruments and 20 TRUShape (30/0.06v) instruments were used. Cyclic fatigue resistance was tested by measuring the number of cycles and time to fracture in an artificial stainless steel canal with a 60° angle and a 5-mm radius of curvature (n = 10). The torque and angle of rotation at failure of new instruments (n = 10) were measured according to ISO 3630-1. The fracture surface of all fragments was examined with a scanning electron microscope. Results were statistically analyzed using the Student t test at a significance level of P < .05.ResultsThe XP-endo Shaper instruments showed a significantly longer number of cycles to fracture and time to failure in seconds than the TRUShape instruments (P < .05). The XP-endo Shaper also presented a lower maximum torque load (P < .05) but a significantly higher angular rotation to fracture than TRUShape (P < .05).ConclusionsThe XP-endo Shaper instruments showed a higher cyclic fatigue resistance and angle of rotation to fracture but lower torque to failure than TRUShape instruments.Copyright © 2017 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

11 keywords...

hide…