Buckling Resistance of Various Nickel-Titanium Glide Path Preparation Instruments in Dynamic or Static Mode

Buckling Susceptibility of a K-File during the Initial Negotiations of Narrow and Curved Canals Using Different Manual Techniques

(1) Background: One possible way to investigate the potential impact or susceptibility of buckling on different manual techniques is to measure compressive loads during canal negotiation. The higher their values, the easier and quicker the critical load level to buckling is reached, leading to possible instrument lateral deformation. The objective of the present study was to investigate the impacts of compressive loads on a small K-file manipulated with different techniques for canal negotiation in simulated narrow and curved canals. (2) Methods: The tooth model selected was a plastic double-curved premolar 23 mm long (DRSK Group AB, Kasernvagen 2, SE-281 35, Hassleholm, Sweden) with an extremely narrow canal lumen to mimic a very difficult anatomical scenario. An experienced endodontist performed the negotiation of 90 of these artificial teeth randomly assigned to 3 different groups of 30 blocks each, respectively, using 3 different techniques: Group A: watch winding/pull (WW) motion; Group B: balanced forces (BF) technique; Group C: envelope of motion (EOM). The measurement system was based on the use of a dynamometer, Instron, Ltd. (model 2525-818 2kN f.s.), linked to a data acquisition unit HBM MGC+ to test all the compression and tensile loads, including all the peaks. (3) Results: All data acquired were processed by the CATMAN AP HBM software. Multiple comparisons for the highest compressive loads estimated the mean difference between WW vs. BF techniques of 3.60 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.85 to 4.35, p < 0.001], WW vs. EOM of −1.76 (95% CI: −2.11 to 1.40, p < 0.001), and BF vs. EOM −5.36 (95% CI: −6.04 to −4.67, p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: In conclusion, among the tested manual motions, the BF technique (Group B) was the most susceptible to buckling with the highest compressive load. WW motion (Group A) and EOM (Group C) were less susceptible to buckling than the BF technique. Therefore, a pressure-free manipulation of manual files, such as WW motion or EOM, can help reduce the susceptibility to buckling during the negotiation of narrow-curved canals.

Bending, buckling and torsional resistance of rotary and reciprocating glide path instruments

AIM

To evaluate the bending, buckling and torsional resistance of ProGlider (PG) (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), R-Pilot (RP) (VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne Gold Glider (WOGG) (Dentsply Sirona).

METHODOLOGY

Ninety instruments were used: 30 PG (size 0.16, .02v taper), 30 RP (size 0.125, .04 taper) and 30 WOGG (size 0.15, .02v taper). The bending resistance test was performed on 10 randomly selected instruments of each system according to ISO 3630-1 specifications. For the buckling resistance test, a loading was applied in the axial direction of each instrument using a universal test machine, with a 20 N cell and 15 mm min^-1 speed, in the axial direction. When a lateral elastic displacement of 1 mm occurred, the force was registered. The torsional resistance test was performed according to ISO 3630-1 specifications. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way anova and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls test (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

WOGG had the lowest bending resistance, whilst RP had the highest bending resistance (P < 0.05). RP also had the highest buckling resistance, and WOGG had the lowest (P < 0.05). PG had intermediate results regarding bending and buckling resistance, with significant differences to RP and WOGG (P < 0.05). RP had the highest torsional strength and the lowest angular deflection when compared to PG and WOGG (P < 0.05). No differences in the torsional strength and angular deflection were observed between WOGG and PG (P> 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The glide path instruments had different behaviours in term of bending, buckling and torsional resistance.