Comparative evaluation of sterilization- and temperature-dependent cyclic fatigue resistance of four different nickel-titanium rotary file systems with reciprocal motion

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the effect of sterilization and temperature differences on the cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne Gold, Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, and Twisted File Adaptive rotary file systems. Methods: In total, 160 files and four file systems were used (n = 20). This study was carried out at two different temperatures: 20°C and 39°C. An artificial stainless-steel canal was used for the static cyclic fatigue test. The breaking times of the files were recorded and calculated by multiplying the number of revolutions by the rotational speed. The SPSS 22 program was used for statistical analysis. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used for data with a normal distribution. The Mann–Whitney U test was used for paired groups. The Kruskal–Wallis test was applied to groups with more than two variables where the data did not fit a normal distribution. Tukey’s post-hoc analysis was used to determine the source of differences. A value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: When the lengths of the broken pieces and the numbers of breaks were compared at the two different temperatures, there was a significant difference between all the files. In addition, there was a significant between-group difference between the sterilized files and nonsterilized files (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The cyclic fatigue resistance of the Reciproc Blue file was higher than that of the other files. Low temperature increased cyclic fatigue resistance.   How to cite this article: Çelikel B, Öztekin F. Comparative evaluation of sterilization and temperature-dependent cyclic fatigue resistance of four different nickel-titanium rotary file systems with reciprocal movement. J Med Dent Invest 2021;2:e211038 https://doi.org/10.5577/jomdi.e211038   Linguistic revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.   Checked for plagiarism: Yes