ProTaper Universal : Tip Evaluation (1st 3mm)

DETAILS:

FILE NAME: ProTaper Universal
COMPANY: Dentsply Tulsa Dental
MANUFACTURER: Dentsply Tulsa Dental
MADE IN: USA
WEBSITE: tulsadentalspecialties.com

 

CHARACTERISTICS:

SIZE: X2
FLUTES: 3 (convex)
SPIRALS PER 16MM: 3
HELIX ANGLE: 20º [fig. 2]
CUTTING ANGLE: (-)31º [fig. 1]
DEBRIS REMOVING AREA: 35.8% [fig. 1]
ROTATION TO FAILURE: 358º
PEAK TORQUE AT FAILURE: 11 gf/cm
60 ̊ DEFLECTION: 1.42 g
PLASTIC DEFORMATION: 0º
FILE CORE AREA RELATIVE TO CIRCUMFERENCE AREA: 54%
FILE CORE AREA RELATIVE TO FILE X-SECTION AREA: 83%

 

DISCUSSION:

  • The resistance to torsional failure was relatively high compared to triangular x-sections. This is due to the greater x-sectional area of convex flutes. The cutting angle is less aggressive and requires greater torsion during performance.

    Tip SEM

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    SEMs are provided by Dr. Franklin Garcia-Godoy, Professor and Senior Executive Associate Dean for Research Director, Bioscience Research Center University of Tennessee Health Science Center

     

ProTaper Next : Tip Evaluation (1st 3mm)

ProTaperNextX2Full

DETAILS:

FILE NAME: ProTaper Next X2
COMPANY: Dentsply Tulsa Dental
MANUFACTURER: Dentsply Tulsa Dental
MADE IN: USA
WEBSITE: tulsadentalspecialties.com

 

CHARACTERISTICS:

SIZE: X2 (.25 tip/0,04-1.2 taper)
FLUTES: 4 (rectangular)
SPIRALS PER 16MM: 3
HELIX ANGLE: 18.5º [fig. 2]
CUTTING ANGLE: (-)45º [fig. 1]
DEBRIS REMOVING AREA: 46.4% [fig. 1]
ROTATION TO FAILURE: 640º (bound 5.7mm from tip)
PEAK TORQUE AT FAILURE: 10.42 gf/cm
60 ̊ DEFLECTION: 3.97 g
PLASTIC DEFORMATION: 0º
FILE CORE AREA RELATIVE TO CIRCUMFERENCE AREA: 42.9%
FILE CORE AREA RELATIVE TO FILE X-SECTION AREA: 78%

 

DISCUSSION:

  • Since the x-section is rectangular, the cutting angle meets the surface to be cut at a 45 degree angle and one might expect very little canal enlargement to occur. However, cam action resulting from the center of rotation being different from the center of mass enhances its cutting ability. Near the tip end, the file’s relatively small core area as compared to its x-sectional area and circumference, makes it more susceptible to separation (especially when sufficient torque is applied for enlargement at its midsection and handle end).

    Tip SEM

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 2

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    SEMs are provided by Dr. Franklin Garcia-Godoy, Professor and Senior Executive Associate Dean for Research Director, Bioscience Research Center University of Tennessee Health Science Center

     

ProTaper Gold S1 : Tip Evaluation (1st 3mm)

ProTaperGoldS1Full

DETAILS:

FILE NAME: ProTaper Gold S1
COMPANY: Dentsply Tulsa Dental
MANUFACTURER: Dentsply Tulsa Dental
MADE IN: USA
WEBSITE: tulsadentalspecialties.com

 

CHARACTERISTICS:

SIZE: S1 (0.17 tip with a progressive taper)
FLUTES: 3 (convex triangle)
SPIRALS PER 16MM: 3
HELIX ANGLE: 19.1º [fig. 2]
CUTTING ANGLE: (-)31º [fig. 1]
DEBRIS REMOVING AREA: 35.8% [fig. 1]
ROTATION TO FAILURE: 310º
PEAK TORQUE AT FAILURE: 22.35 gf/cm
60 ̊ DEFLECTION: 5.39 g
PLASTIC DEFORMATION: 0º
FILE CORE AREA RELATIVE TO CIRCUMFERENCE AREA: 54%
FILE CORE AREA RELATIVE TO FILE X-SECTION AREA: 83%

 

DISCUSSION:

  • The ProTaper series of files have tapers that are not constant along the working length making comparative testing difficult. It is worth noting that the core area relative to the file’s circumference and the file’s x-section is comparatively high when measured against all other files. That is consistent with the relative high peak torque during rotation to failure. On a negative note this feature also accounts for the small debris removal area and negative cutting angle both contributing to high torsional stress during canal enlargement.

    Tip SEM

    Tip SEM

    Fig. 1

    Fig. 2

    Fig. 2

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    SEMs are provided by Dr. Franklin Garcia-Godoy, Professor and Senior Executive Associate Dean for Research Director, Bioscience Research Center University of Tennessee Health Science Center

     

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)

 

What differences do endo file design differences make?

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.