Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Aust Endod J. 2011 Dec;37(3):122-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2010.00222.x. Epub 2010 May 11.

A comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance in reciprocating and rotary nickel-titanium instruments.

Author information

  • 1Essential Dental Laboratories, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606, USA.


The cyclic fatigue resistance of four nickel-titanium endodontic instruments was compared. K3, ProFile and GT Series X rotary instruments were examined along with SafeSiders reciprocating instruments. 30/0.04 instruments at 25 mm length were compared. Cyclic fatigue testing was conducted by operating instruments in artificially constructed stainless steel canals with 30° and 45° angles of curvature and 5 mm and 7.5 mm radii of curvature. The time and cycles to failure were recorded for 192 samples. Statistical analysis was performed with three-way anova and the Student-Neuman-Keuls multiple comparisons testing. With a 5 min maximum running time, no SafeSiders samples were observed to separate. ProFile and GT Series X instruments were found to be significantly more resistant than K3 instruments (P < 0.001) for all experiment groups. There was no statistical difference between ProFile and GT Series X files (P < 0.582).

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Australian Society of Endodontology.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk