| Title |
Cutting efficiency of nickel–titanium rotary and reciprocating instruments after prolonged use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Odontology, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10266-014-0183-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gianluca Gambarini, Alessio Giansiracusa Rubini, Giampaolo Sannino, Fabrizio Di Giorgio, Lucila Piasecki, Dina Al-Sudani, Gianluca Plotino, Luca Testarelli |
| Abstract |
The aim of the present study was to compare the cutting efficiency of Twisted File instruments used in continuous rotation or TF Adaptive motion and evaluate if prolonged use significantly affected their cutting ability. 20 new NiTi instruments were used in the present study (TF tip size 35, 0.06 taper; Sybron-Endo, Orange, CA, USA), divided into 2 subgroups of 10 instruments each, depending on which movement was selected on the endodontic motor. Group 1: TF instruments were activated using the program TF continuous rotation at 500 rpm and torque set at 2 N; Group 2: TF instruments were activated using the reciprocating TF Adaptive motion. Cutting efficiency was tested in a device developed to test the cutting ability of endodontic instruments. Each instrument cut 10 plastic blocks (10 uses) and the length of the surface cut in a plastic block after 1 min was measured in a computerized program with a precision of 0.1 mm. Maximum penetration depth was calculated after 1 use and after 10 uses, and mean and standard deviation (SD) of each group was calculated. Data were statistically analyzed with a one-way ANOVA test (P < 0.05). TF instruments used in continuous rotation (Group 1) cut a mean depth of 10.4 mm (SD = 0.6 mm) after the first use and 10.1 mm (SD 1.1 mm) after 10 uses, while TF instruments used with the Adaptive motion cut a mean depth of 9.9 mm (SD = 0.7 mm) after the first use and 9.6 mm (SD = 0.9 mm) after 10 uses. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups investigated (P > 0.05) nor between instruments after 1 or 10 uses. In conclusion, the TFA motion showed a lateral cutting ability similar to continuous rotation and all tested instruments exhibited the same cutting ability after prolonged use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 12% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 49% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 22 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2014.
All research outputs
#18,385,510
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from Odontology
#121
of 201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#261,785
of 361,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Odontology
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 201 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,296 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.