A critical evaluation of physical and manufacturing properties of genuine and counterfeit rotary nickel–titanium endodontic instruments

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Australian dental journal Pub Date : 2023-06-20 DOI:10.1111/adj.12964

B Madytianos, E Liu, A Marshall, E Mahony, K Liu, J Manogaran, HH Liu, P Parashos, M Evans

{"title":"A critical evaluation of physical and manufacturing properties of genuine and counterfeit rotary nickel–titanium endodontic instruments","authors":"B Madytianos, E Liu, A Marshall, E Mahony, K Liu, J Manogaran, HH Liu, P Parashos, M Evans","doi":"10.1111/adj.12964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Rotary nickel–titanium (NiTi) instruments are made to exacting standards and are costly to manufacture, and quality control is paramount. Consequently, unauthorized factories make counterfeit instruments that are less expensive and may therefore be attractive to dentists. Little information exists about the metallurgy and manufacturing quality of such instruments. There is the potential for counterfeit instruments to be at higher risk of fracture during treatment, thereby compromising clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate physical and manufacturing properties of genuine and counterfeit ProTaper Next™ and Mtwo® rotary NiTi instruments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This study investigated the metallurgical properties, manufacturing quality, microhardness and number of cycles to failure of two commonly used rotary NiTi systems and compared them with counterfeit products purporting to be genuine articles.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Counterfeit instruments were found to be inferior in manufacturing standards and were less resistant to cyclic fatigue when compared to genuine instruments.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Counterfeit rotary NiTi instruments may be less efficient at preparing root canals and may be at higher risk of fracture during endodontic treatment. Dentists must be aware that, although less expensive, counterfeit instruments may be of dubious manufacturing quality and at higher risk of fracture if used in patients. © 2023 Australian Dental Association.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":8593,"journal":{"name":"Australian dental journal","volume":"68 3","pages":"179-185"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/adj.12964","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian dental journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/adj.12964","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Rotary nickel–titanium (NiTi) instruments are made to exacting standards and are costly to manufacture, and quality control is paramount. Consequently, unauthorized factories make counterfeit instruments that are less expensive and may therefore be attractive to dentists. Little information exists about the metallurgy and manufacturing quality of such instruments. There is the potential for counterfeit instruments to be at higher risk of fracture during treatment, thereby compromising clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate physical and manufacturing properties of genuine and counterfeit ProTaper Next™ and Mtwo® rotary NiTi instruments.

Methods

This study investigated the metallurgical properties, manufacturing quality, microhardness and number of cycles to failure of two commonly used rotary NiTi systems and compared them with counterfeit products purporting to be genuine articles.

Results

Counterfeit instruments were found to be inferior in manufacturing standards and were less resistant to cyclic fatigue when compared to genuine instruments.

Conclusions

Counterfeit rotary NiTi instruments may be less efficient at preparing root canals and may be at higher risk of fracture during endodontic treatment. Dentists must be aware that, although less expensive, counterfeit instruments may be of dubious manufacturing quality and at higher risk of fracture if used in patients. © 2023 Australian Dental Association.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

真实和伪造的旋转镍钛根管器械的物理和制造性能的关键评估

旋转镍钛(NiTi)仪器是按照严格的标准制造的，制造成本很高，质量控制至关重要。因此，未经授权的工厂制造的假冒器械价格较低，因此可能对牙医有吸引力。关于这种仪器的冶金和制造质量的资料很少。在治疗过程中，伪造的器械可能有更高的骨折风险，从而影响临床结果。本研究的目的是评估正品和假冒ProTaper Next™和Mtwo®旋转NiTi仪器的物理和制造特性。方法研究了两种常用的旋转镍钛系统的冶金性能、制造质量、显微硬度和失效循环次数，并与假冒伪劣产品进行了比较。结果与正品仪器相比，假冒仪器的制造标准较差，抗循环疲劳性能较差。结论假造的旋转NiTi器械在预备根管时效率较低，在根管治疗中骨折的风险较高。牙医必须意识到，尽管价格较低，但假冒器械的制造质量可能存在问题，如果用于患者，骨折的风险更高。©2023澳大利亚牙科协会。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Australian dental journal 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

4.80%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Australian Dental Journal provides a forum for the exchange of information about new and significant research in dentistry, promoting the discipline of dentistry in Australia and throughout the world. It comprises peer-reviewed research articles as its core material, supplemented by reviews, theoretical articles, special features and commentaries.