Torsional resistance of XP-endo Shaper at body temperature compared with several nickel-titanium rotary instruments

Abstract

Aim

To compare the torsional resistance of XP-endo Shaper (XPS; size 30, 0.01 taper, FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) instruments at body temperature with TRUShape (TRS; size 30, 0.06 taper, Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK, USA), ProFile Vortex (PV; size 30, 0.04 taper, Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties), and FlexMaster (FM; size 30, 0.04 taper, VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany) nickel-titanium rotary instruments.

Methodology

A metal block with a square-shaped mould (5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm) was positioned inside a glass-container. Five mm of the tip of each instrument was held inside the metal block by filling the mould with a resin composite. The instruments were tested for torsional resistance in saline solution at 37°C. Data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc tests. Statistical significance level was set at P < 0.05.

Results

FM had the highest torsional resistance among the instruments tested (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between FM and PV instruments (P = 0.211). The ranking in the torsional resistance values was as follows: FM > PV > TRS > XPS.

Conclusions

FlexMaster and ProFile Vortex instruments were more resistant to torsional stress compared with TRUShape and XP-endo Shaper instruments. The manufacturing process used to produce XP-endo Shaper instruments did not enhance their resistance to torsional stress as compared with the other instruments.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

http://ift.tt/2u9o6PR