Comparison of Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of ProGlider and One G Glide Path Files


    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistances of nickel-titanium rotary glide path files, which are manufactured as single-file systems, under dynamic model.MethodsTwenty ProGlider (16.02) and 20 One G (14.03) nickel-titanium glide path files were included in this study. Cyclic fatigue tests were performed with specifically manufactured dynamic cyclic testing device. The device has an artificially prepared canal with 60° curvature angle and 5-mm curvature radius. The canal inner diameter is 1.5 mm, and its curvature center is located at the coronal 5 mm from the apical. The files were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 20): group 1, ProGlider; group 2, One G. Time to fracture was recorded, and the number of cycles to failure for each instrument was obtained. Statistical analyses were performed by using independent samples t test. The statistically significant level was set at P < .05.ResultsThe cyclic fatigue resistance of ProGlider files was found to be statistically significantly higher than that of the One G files (P < .05).ConclusionsWithin the limitations of the present study, it was concluded that the cyclic fatigue resistance of ProGlider, which is manufactured as single-file glide path system, is higher than that of the One G file.HighlightsWe compare the cyclic fatigue resistances of One G and ProGlider NiTi rotary glide path files under dynamic model.The evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance was performed in a dynamic cyclic fatigue testing device.This study has shown that the cyclic fatigue resistance of ProGlider files was found to be statistically significantly higher than that of the One G files (P < .05).In vivo studies are needed to determine the clinical performance of ProGlider and One G files.

    loading  Loading Related Articles