Finite Element Study on Continuous Rotating versus Reciprocating Nickel-Titanium Instruments

Abstract In the present study, GTX and ProTaper as continuous rotating endodontic files were numerically compared with WaveOne reciprocating file using finite element analysis, aiming at having a low cost, accurate/trustworthy comparison as well as finding out the effect of instrument design and manufacturing material on its lifespan. Two 3D finite element models were especially prepared for this comparison. Commercial engineering CAD/CAM package was used to model full detailed flute geometries of the instruments. Multi-linear materials were defined in analysis by using real strain-stress data of NiTi and M-Wire. Non-linear static analysis was performed to simulate the instrument inside root canal at a 45° angle in the apical portion and subjected to 0.3 N.cm torsion. The three simulations in this study showed that M-Wire is slightly more resistant to failure than conventional NiTi. On the other hand, both materials are fairly similar in case of severe locking conditions. For the same instrument geometry, M-Wire instruments may have longer lifespan than the conventional NiTi ones. In case of severe locking conditions both materials will fail similarly. Larger cross sectional area (function of instrument taper) resisted better to failure than the smaller ones, while the cross sectional shape and its cutting angles could affect instrument cutting efficiency.

Resumo As limas rotativas GTX e ProTaper foram comparadas numericamente com as limas reciprocatórias WaveOne pela análise de elementos finitos, com o objetivo de baixar custos, comparação fiel e exata, além de pesquisar o efeito do projeto das limas e de seu material sobre a durabilidade. Dois modelos tridimensionais de análise de elementos finitos foram especialmente elaborados para esta comparação. Utilizou-se um sistema de engenharia CAD/CAM comercial para construir o modelo totalmente detalhado da geometria das estrias das limas. Materiais multi-lineares foram definidos na análise usando dados reais de deformação por estresse de NiTi e M-Wire. Procedeu-se à análise estática não linear para simular a ação do instrumento dentro do canal radicular em ângulo de 45° na região apical, submetido a uma torsão de 0.3 N.cm. As três simulações realizadas no presente estudo demonstraram que o M-Wire é um pouco mais resistente a falhas que o NiTi convencional. Por outro lado, ambos os materiais são bastante similares em condições de travamento severo. No caso da geometria das limas, os instrumentos de M-Wire podem ter vida útil mais longa que os de NiTi convencional. Em condições de travamento severo, ambos os materiais terão falhas similares. Maior área transversal (em função da conicidade do instrumento) resiste melhor a falhas que as áreas transversais menores, ao passo que a geometria da área transversal e seus ângulos de corte podem afetar a eficiência de corte das limas.

A finite element study on the mechanical behavior of reciprocating endodontic files

To evaluate the mechanical behavior of reciprocating endodontic files, comparing nickel-titanium NiTi and stainless steel 316L St.St. 316L as manufacturing material for such instruments. METHODS: A three-dimensional finite element model was designed for this study. The simplified instrument model geometry was created on commercial CAD/CAM software. Real strain stress curves of St.St. 316L and NiTi were used in the analysis. Non-linear static analysis was performed to simulate the instrument inside root canal at an angle of 45° in the apical portion, and subjected to torsion of 0.3 N.cm. RESULTS: Non-linear NiTi material showed super elasticity and high functionality in such applications. Very high levels of stress appeared in the file at 3 mm from the tip close to yield point. CONCLUSIONS: St. St. 316L is not suitable for manufacturing reciprocating instruments. Modeling of the instrument with equivalent circular cross-sectional area did not affect results quality. Reciprocating instruments have short lifespan, thus manufacturers recommend using one file per tooth. Reciprocating instruments are recommended for less experienced dentist...