Mechanical Tests, Metallurgical Characterization, and Shaping Ability of Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instruments: A Multimethod Research

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the mechanical and metallurgical properties and shaping ability of different rotary systems using a multimethod approach.

Methods: New NeoNiti A1 (Neolix SAS, Châtres-La-Forêt, France), HyFlex EDM One File (Coltène/Whaledent, Altstätten, Switzerland), ProTaper Gold F2 (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and ProTaper Universal F2 (Dentsply Maillefer) rotary instruments were tested regarding cyclic fatigue, torsional resistance, design, and morphologic characteristics using scanning electron microscopy, metal alloy characterization using differential scanning calorimetry, and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Additionally, their shaping ability on the preparation of 48 canals of maxillary molars was evaluated using micro-computed tomographic technology. Mechanical and metallurgical analyses were compared using analysis of variance post hoc Tukey tests, whereas the independent Student t test was used to compare the shaping ability of the ProTaper systems or the thermomechanically treated instruments. The significance level was set at 5%.

Results: The highest cyclic fatigue was observed with the NeoNiti and HyFlex EDM instruments (P > .05), whereas HyFlex EDM had the highest angular rotation to fracture (P < .05). Scanning electron microscopic/energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopic analyses confirmed similarities in the instruments' design and an almost equiatomic composition of the systems. Differential scanning calorimetry showed that ProTaper Gold had higher transformation temperatures than ProTaper Universal, whereas a similar transformation was observed between NeoNiti and HyFlex. Micro-computed tomographic analysis revealed that, despite the fact that none of the systems was able to prepare all root canal walls, no statistical differences were observed in either ProTaper systems (P > .05) or the thermomechanically treated instruments (P > .05).

Conclusions: Apart from differences in the mechanical tests and metallurgical characterization, systems with comparable instrument dimensions and preparation protocols showed a similar percentage of untouched surface areas in the root canal preparation of maxillary molars.