Measurement of the cutting efficiency of endodontic instruments: A new concept

被引:17
作者
Haikel, Y [1 ]
Serfaty, R [1 ]
Lwin, TTC [1 ]
Allemann, C [1 ]
机构
[1] UNIV STRASBOURG 1, CONSERVAT DEPT, DEPT ENDODONT, STRASBOURG, FRANCE
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80058-6
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
The cutting efficiency of endodontic instruments was measured using an original experimental technique that incorporates new concepts to simulate clinical conditions. Five designs of #ISO 030 endodontic instruments, K-reamer (Maillefer), Flexofile (Maillefer), Helifile (Micro-mega), K-flex (Kerr), and Unifile (De Trey), were chosen and their cutting efficiency assessed at their full working length of 16 mm on two Plexiglas parallelepipeds tilted to follow the 2% conicity of the instruments. For each instrument, four series of 25 cuts were carried out and each cut made on a new flat, smooth Plexiglas surface with an even hardness of 33 VHN. Instruments were tested under a simulated clinical condition of a quarter clockwise turn ROTARY MOTION followed by a PULL ACTION at 16 mm/s rate, with a fixed load on the instrument of 325 g. Water irrigation at a rate of 85 ml/s was supplied before each procedure. Cutting efficiency was evaluated in terms of mass of Plexiglas cut (using a Mettler analytic balance with accuracy of 3 x 10(-5) g) per unit of energy used by the instrument, i.e. mg/J. Unifile was found to have the best cutting efficiency of 0.80 +/- 0.01 (Mean +/- SD) and lowest cutting efficiency loss followed by Flexofile 0.70 +/- 0.03 then Helifile 0.36 +/- 0.01 then K-flex 0.51 +/- 0.07. K-reamer was found to have the lowest cutting efficiency of 0.16 +/- 0.05.
引用
收藏
页码:651 / 656
页数:6
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
*AM NAT STAND I, 1981, 28 ADA AM NAT STAND
[2]   FLUTE DESIGN OF ENDODONTIC INSTRUMENTS - ITS INFLUENCE ON CUTTING EFFICIENCY [J].
FELT, RA ;
MOSER, JB ;
HEUER, MA .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 1982, 8 (06) :253-259
[3]   THE COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY OF 4 TYPES OF ENDODONTIC INSTRUMENTS [J].
MACHIAN, GR ;
PETERS, DD ;
LORTON, L .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 1982, 8 (09) :398-402
[4]   CUTTING EFFICIENCY OF ENDODONTIC HAND INSTRUMENTS .4. COMPARISON OF HYBRID AND TRADITIONAL INSTRUMENT DESIGNS [J].
MISERENDINO, LJ ;
BRANTLEY, WA ;
WALIA, HD ;
GERSTEIN, H .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 1988, 14 (09) :451-454
[5]   CUTTING EFFICIENCY OF ENDODONTIC INSTRUMENTS .2. ANALYSIS OF TIP DESIGN [J].
MISERENDINO, LJ ;
MOSER, JB ;
HEUER, MA ;
OSETEK, EM .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 1986, 12 (01) :8-12
[6]   CUTTING EFFICIENCY OF ENDODONTIC INSTRUMENTS .3. COMPARISON OF SONIC AND ULTRASONIC INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS [J].
MISERENDINO, LJ ;
MISERENDINO, CA ;
MOSER, JB ;
HEUER, MA ;
OSETEK, EM .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 1988, 14 (01) :24-30
[7]   CUTTING EFFICIENCY OF ENDODONTIC INSTRUMENTS .1. A QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON OF THE TIP AND FLUTED REGIONS [J].
MISERENDINO, LJ ;
MOSER, JB ;
HEUER, MA ;
OSETEK, EM .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 1985, 11 (10) :435-441
[8]  
Molven O, 1970, Scand J Dent Res, V78, P500
[9]   A STUDY OF THE CUTTING EFFICIENCY OF 7 BRANDS OF ENDODONTIC FILES IN LINEAR MOTION [J].
NEWMAN, JG ;
BRANTLEY, WA ;
GERSTEIN, H .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 1983, 9 (08) :316-322
[10]   CUTTING EFFICIENCY OF ENDODONTIC REAMERS [J].
OLIET, S ;
SORIN, SM .
ORAL SURGERY ORAL MEDICINE ORAL PATHOLOGY ORAL RADIOLOGY AND ENDODONTICS, 1973, 36 (02) :243-252