Sequence ESX : Tip Evaluation (1st 3mm)

DETAILS:

FILE NAME: Sequence ESX
COMPANY: Brasseler USA
MANUFACTURER: FKG
MADE IN: Switzerland
WEBSITE: brasselerusadental.com

 

CHARACTERISTICS:

SIZE: 25/04
FLUTES: 3 (triangular)
SPIRALS PER 16MM: 2.67
HELIX ANGLE: 9.5º [fig. 2]
CUTTING ANGLE: (-) 30º [fig. 1]
DEBRIS REMOVING AREA: 55% [fig. 1]
ROTATION TO FAILURE: 560º
PEAK TORQUE AT FAILURE: 88.57 gf/cm
60 ̊ DEFLECTION: 2.32 g
PLASTIC DEFORMATION: 0º
FILE CORE AREA RELATIVE TO CIRCUMFERENCE AREA: 28%
FILE CORE AREA RELATIVE TO FILE X-SECTION AREA: 62%

 

DISCUSSION:

  • Manufacturer claims a booster tip comprised of 6 cutting sides but its sides are so small that they actually form a non-cutting tip. The tip will not negotiate a canal having a smaller diameter without burnishing its way into the canal and resulting in greater torsional stress.
  • The finish is excellent and the blades are sharp.
  • Testing shows the recommendation of using 2-3 files is overly ambitious as is the recommended use of long strokes for insertion.

TIP SEM

Fig. 1 : TIP X-SECTION

Fig. 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POST A COMMENT

DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE PDF

Introduction to Mastering Endodontic Instrumentation : An online addendum

Screen Shot 2015-02-04 at 7.24.00 PM

What differences do design differences make? We intend to find out. We are embarking on a very ambitious research program to test each part of every major file in production, from tip to handle. We have completely up-dated the computer controlled Endo File Evaluator to improve resolution of its sensors and motors and to expand its capability for performing new testing protocols. As such, we have created what I believe is not only the most objective means for evaluating endodontic files, but also the best method for testing file functions in a manner that is truly relevant within a clinical setting. We do this while letting the data determine the results for objective comparisons independent of operator skill or marketing bias.

What difference does this endeavor make? Our first objective is to finally determine how to minimize risk and maximize efficiency, how file designs relate to function, how function relates to canal anatomy, and how anatomy relates to technique. Our second objective is to present the Endo File Evaluator results using the numerous different parameters for testing, and to use high resolution images and SEMs in a manner that allows clinicians to save and apply the information to enhance their skill and treatment.

How will this process take place? About every ten days we will share test results and observations of only one segment of each file beginning with the file tips. Through this blog, we invite you to participate in discussions and critiques to create group research dynamics as this project progresses. Once all segments of the files have been covered, a composite of each whole file will be available as an endodontic reference along  with any contributing assessments gathered from our readers. We will continue providing results as we find them through this comprehensive series of evaluations and add to them in the future as needed. We are excited to embark on this endeavor and hope you will follow along and contribute your own thoughts and impressions.

 

DOWNLOAD MASTERING ENDODONTIC INSTRUMENTATION (original award winning text)