Vortex Blue : Tip Evaluation (1st 3mm)

VortexBlueFullView

DETAILS:

FILE NAME: Vortex Blue
COMPANY: Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties
MANUFACTURER: Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties
MADE IN: USA
WEBSITE: tulsadentalspecialties.com

 

CHARACTERISTICS:

SIZE: 25/04
FLUTES: 3 (triangular)
SPIRALS PER 16MM: 4
HELIX ANGLE: 23º [fig. 2]
CUTTING ANGLE: (-)34º [fig. 1]
DEBRIS REMOVING AREA: 45% [fig. 1]
ROTATION TO FAILURE: 510º
PEAK TORQUE AT FAILURE: 63.08 gf/cm
60 ̊ DEFLECTION: 2.16 g
PLASTIC DEFORMATION: 0º
FILE CORE AREA RELATIVE TO CIRCUMFERENCE AREA: 55%
FILE CORE AREA RELATIVE TO FILE X-SECTION AREA: 69%

 

DISCUSSION:

  • Most interesting from the results of testing is the difference in properties of the Vortex Blue compared to those of the Sequence file; especially since both have the same cross-sectional configuration and helix angles. Contrary to the manufacturer’s claims, the Vortex Blue’s resistance to torsion was not enhanced, but instead appears to be substantially less than that of the Sequence file.

 

TIP SEM

TIP SEM

Fig. 1

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)

 

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.