To flat or not to flat? Exploring the impact of flat-side design on rotary instruments using a comprehensive multimethod investigation.

AIM: To assess the influence of a flat-side design on the geometry, metallurgy, mechanical performance and shaping ability of a novel nickel-titanium rotary instrument. METHODOLOGY: Sixty-five new 25-mm flat-side rotary instruments (size 25, taper 0.04) and their nonflat-side prototypes (n = 65) were assessed for major deformations and examined regarding macroscopic and microscopic design, determination of nickel and titanium elements ratio, measurement of phase transformation temperature and evaluation of mechanical performance parameters including time/cycles to fracture, maximum torque, angle of rotation, maximum bending and buckling strengths and cutting ability. Additionally, unprepared canal areas, volume of hard tissue debris and percentage reduction of dentine thickness were calculated for each tested instrument after preparing mesial canals of mandibular molars (n = 12), using micro-CT imaging. Statistical analyses were performed using the U-Mann-Whitney test and independent Student t-test (α = 5%). RESULTS: The number of spirals (n = 8) and blade direction (clockwise) were similar between both flat and nonflat instruments, whilst the helical angles were equivalent (⁓25°). Flat-instruments showed inconsistencies in the homogeneity of the gold colour on the flat-side surface, blade discontinuity, and incomplete and variable S-shaped cross-sections. The titanium-to-nickel ratios were equivalent, but significant differences in the R-phase finish and austenitic start phase transformation temperatures were observed between the flat and nonflat-side instruments. The flat-side instruments demonstrated superior cutting ability compared to the nonflat instruments, as well as, significantly lower values for time to fracture, rotation to fracture and maximum torque to fracture (p < .001). No statistical difference was observed between tested instruments regarding angle of rotation (p = .437), maximum bending (p = .152) and buckling load (p = .411). Preparation protocols using flat and nonflat instruments did not show any statistically significant differences (p > .05). All flat-side instruments exhibited deformation after shaping procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The flat-side instrument showcased enhanced cutting ability compared to its nonflat counterpart. However, it exhibited inferior performance in terms of time, rotation and maximum torque to fracture, along with distinct phase transformation temperatures. No differences were observed in the titanium-to-nickel ratios, angle of rotation, maximum bending, buckling load, preparation time, percentage of untouched canal walls, volume of hard tissue debris and percentage reduction of dentine thickness.