File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of defects in ProTaper hand-operated and engine-driven instruments after clinical use

TitleComparison of defects in ProTaper hand-operated and engine-driven instruments after clinical use
Authors
KeywordsFatigue
Fracture
Nickel-titanium
ProTaper
Rotary instrument
Shear
Issue Date2007
PublisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/IEJ
Citation
International Endodontic Journal, 2007, v. 40 n. 3, p. 169-178 How to Cite?
AbstractAim: To compare the type of defects and mode of material failure of engine-driven and hand-operated ProTaper instruments after clinical use. Methodology: A total of 401 hand-operated and 325 engine-driven ProTaper instruments were discarded from an endodontic clinic over 17 months. Those that had fractured were examined for plastic deformation in lateral view and remounted for fractographical examination in scanning electron microscope. The mode of fracture was classified as 'fatigue' or 'shear' failure. The lengths of fractured segments in both instruments were recorded. Any distortion in hand instrument was noted. Data were analysed using chi-square, Fisher's exact or Student's t-test, where appropriate. Results: Approximately 14% of all discarded hand-operated instruments and 14% of engine-driven instruments were fractured. About 62% of hand instruments failed because of shear fracture, compared with approximately 66% of engine-driven instruments as a result of fatigue (P < 0.05). Approximately 16% of hand instruments were affected by shear, and either remained intact or was fractured, compared with 5% of engine-driven instruments (P < 0.05). The length of the broken fragment was significantly shorter in hand versus engine-driven group (P < 0.05). Approximately 7% of hand instruments were discarded intact but distorted (rarely for engine-driven instruments); all were in the form of unscrewing of the flutes. The location of defects in hand Finishing instruments was significantly closer to the tip than that for Shaping instruments (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study (possibly high usage), the failure mode of ProTaper engine-driven and hand-operated instruments appeared to be different, with shear failure being more prevalent in the latter. © 2007 International Endodontic Journal.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/66388
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.842
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.020
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCheung, GSPen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBian, Zen_HK
dc.contributor.authorShen, Yen_HK
dc.contributor.authorPeng, Ben_HK
dc.contributor.authorDarvell, BWen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T05:45:57Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T05:45:57Z-
dc.date.issued2007en_HK
dc.identifier.citationInternational Endodontic Journal, 2007, v. 40 n. 3, p. 169-178en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0143-2885en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/66388-
dc.description.abstractAim: To compare the type of defects and mode of material failure of engine-driven and hand-operated ProTaper instruments after clinical use. Methodology: A total of 401 hand-operated and 325 engine-driven ProTaper instruments were discarded from an endodontic clinic over 17 months. Those that had fractured were examined for plastic deformation in lateral view and remounted for fractographical examination in scanning electron microscope. The mode of fracture was classified as 'fatigue' or 'shear' failure. The lengths of fractured segments in both instruments were recorded. Any distortion in hand instrument was noted. Data were analysed using chi-square, Fisher's exact or Student's t-test, where appropriate. Results: Approximately 14% of all discarded hand-operated instruments and 14% of engine-driven instruments were fractured. About 62% of hand instruments failed because of shear fracture, compared with approximately 66% of engine-driven instruments as a result of fatigue (P < 0.05). Approximately 16% of hand instruments were affected by shear, and either remained intact or was fractured, compared with 5% of engine-driven instruments (P < 0.05). The length of the broken fragment was significantly shorter in hand versus engine-driven group (P < 0.05). Approximately 7% of hand instruments were discarded intact but distorted (rarely for engine-driven instruments); all were in the form of unscrewing of the flutes. The location of defects in hand Finishing instruments was significantly closer to the tip than that for Shaping instruments (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study (possibly high usage), the failure mode of ProTaper engine-driven and hand-operated instruments appeared to be different, with shear failure being more prevalent in the latter. © 2007 International Endodontic Journal.en_HK
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/IEJen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Endodontic Journalen_HK
dc.rightsInternational Endodontic Journal. Copyright © Blackwell Publishing Ltd.en_HK
dc.subjectFatigueen_HK
dc.subjectFractureen_HK
dc.subjectNickel-titaniumen_HK
dc.subjectProTaperen_HK
dc.subjectRotary instrumenten_HK
dc.subjectShearen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Alloysen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Instrumentsen_HK
dc.subject.meshDental Stress Analysisen_HK
dc.subject.meshEquipment Failure Analysisen_HK
dc.subject.meshEquipment Reuseen_HK
dc.subject.meshHumansen_HK
dc.subject.meshNickelen_HK
dc.subject.meshRoot Canal Preparation - instrumentationen_HK
dc.subject.meshShear Strengthen_HK
dc.subject.meshStress, Mechanicalen_HK
dc.subject.meshTitaniumen_HK
dc.titleComparison of defects in ProTaper hand-operated and engine-driven instruments after clinical useen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0143-2885&volume=40&spage=169&epage=178&date=2007&atitle=Comparison+of+defects+in+ProTaper+hand-operated+and+engine-driven+instruments+after+clinical+useen_HK
dc.identifier.emailCheung, GSP: spcheung@hkucc.hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailDarvell, BW: b.w.darvell@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, GSP=rp00016en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityDarvell, BW=rp00007en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01200.xen_HK
dc.identifier.pmid17305693-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-33846941149en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros126267en_HK
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-33846941149&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume40en_HK
dc.identifier.issue3en_HK
dc.identifier.spage169en_HK
dc.identifier.epage178en_HK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000244229100002-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCheung, GSP=7005809531en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBian, Z=7103314705en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridShen, Y=7404767171en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPeng, B=7102873002en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDarvell, BW=7005953926en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike1111404-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats