Home Current issue Ahead of print Search About us Editorial board Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 142
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 37-44

Fracture of rotary nickel titanium instruments


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. Ziauddin Ahmad Dental College, AMU, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication2-Mar-2017

Correspondence Address:
Bhumika Kapoor
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. Ziauddin Ahmad Dental College, AMU, Aligarh - 202 002, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jorr.jorr_40_16

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

With the advent of rotary nickel titanium (NiTi) instruments, preparation of curved canals have become easy but chances of instrument separation have increased. Such an instrument separation can cause procedural problems in rendering endodontic therapy. There are various factors that cause separation of rotary NiTi instruments. These factors, various failure mechanisms and impact on the prognosis of instrument separation have to be well understood by the clinician.

Keywords: Nickel titanium instruments, prognosis, rotary, separation


How to cite this article:
Tewari RK, Kapoor B, Kumar A, Mishra SK, Mukhtar-Un-Nisar-Andrabi S. Fracture of rotary nickel titanium instruments. J Oral Res Rev 2017;9:37-44

How to cite this URL:
Tewari RK, Kapoor B, Kumar A, Mishra SK, Mukhtar-Un-Nisar-Andrabi S. Fracture of rotary nickel titanium instruments. J Oral Res Rev [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 May 27];9:37-44. Available from: http://www.jorr.org/text.asp?2017/9/1/37/201408


  Introduction Top


Preparation of curved canals is a challenge to an endodontist as it can lead to various iatrogenic problems such as zip formation, ledging or slit perforation. To overcome this problem nickel titanium (NiTi) instruments were discovered which proved to be beneficial for the preparation of curved canals due to its property of high flexibility and superior resistance to torsional fracture. Despite this flexibility, these instruments have a tendency to separate in the canal and can affect the treatment outcome. Many factors contribute to such instrument fracture. One of most common reasons is incorrect use or overuse of an endodontic instrument.[1] It is observed that occurrence of instrument fracture is more with advent of rotary NiTi instruments.[2] The stainless steel (SS) instruments show signs of distortion before fracture while NiTi instruments separate without warning.[3],[4],[5] There are no visible defects of previous permanent deformation and most of file separation occurs in apical third of canal.[2],[3],[6],[7] This review discusses various causes, prevalence, impact on prognosis and clinical recommendations regarding prevention and the management of instrument facture.


  Prevalence Top


Separation rates of SS instruments have been reported to range between 0.25% and 6%.[6],[7],[8] On the other hand, frequency of fracture of rotary NiTi instruments is approximately 1.0% with a range of 0.4%–3.7%.[7],[8] It was concluded by Rowan et al. that the force required to fracture both SS instruments and NiTi instruments in both clockwise and anticlockwise direction is same.[9] Sattapan et al.[10] reported that 21% from 378 discarded Quantec instruments were fractured. These discarded instruments were collected over 6-months period from various endodontists. A study examined used, discarded rotary NiTi instruments obtained from 14 endodontists in four countries and identified factors that influenced defects produced during clinical use. Among 7159 that were examined fractures were seen in 5% of cases (1.5% torsional, 3.5% flexural).[11] Alapati et al.[12] found 5.1% of 822 rotary NiTi instruments were discarded by graduates in endodontic clinical practice. The frequency of instrument fracture and its impact on treatment outcome were determined from an analysis of specialist endodontic practice records involving 8460 cases. The prevalence of retained fractured instruments was found to be 3.3% of treated teeth.[13] The instruments that were once used by a different endodontists showed a fracture incidence of 0.9% of 786 teeth.[4] Thus, for better treatment results, it is mandatory for the clinician to recognize the chances of instrument fracture.


  Nickel Titanium Metallurgy Top


NiTi rotary instruments have been extensively used in endodontics since the physical properties of nitinol were defined in 1988. NiTi instruments have been introduced in dentistry due to its property of shape memory, super elasticity, and resistance to corrosion. These properties are due to its phase transition from austentic to martensite. The phase transition is due to alteration in type of atomic bonding. The martensitic transformation requires a reversible atomic process termed twinning that reduces strain during the transformation. Unlike SS, NiTi instruments have low ultimate tensile strength and yield strength which makes it susceptible to fracture.

The flexibility and resistance to fracture of newer rotary NiTi instruments, can be increased by introduction of modified shape design and manufacturing processes. The instrument is subjected to a series of manufacturing processes such as R phase heat treatment, twisting of the metal, and special surface conditioning. These instruments have greater flexibility and resistance to cyclic fatigue, for example, Twisted Files (TF) (SybronEndo, Orange, CA, USA).


  Predisposing Factors for Nickel Titanium Fracture Top


There are many factors but most common reason as mentioned is incorrect use or overuse.[1],[10]

Number of uses

Cyclic flexural fatigue resistance decreases with prolonged use.[1],[14],[15],[16],[17] Results of a clinical study that suggested that rotary instruments might be used to prepare four molar teeth, with no increase in the incidence of instrument fracture.[18],[19] Svec and Powers [20] found signs of deterioration of all instruments in their study after only one use. Parashos et al.[11] concluded that there is no co relation between instrument fracture and frequency of use. However, there are only few studies that have focused on life of used rotary files.

Manufacturers have focused on number of use of rotary files to prevent inadvertent file fracture. However, the use of rotary file only once to prevent fracture is not supported in literature.[11] Instrument fracture is multifactorial and number of use itself depends on various operator's skill, canal morphology and properties of the instrument. [Figure 1] shows various fractured rotary files.
Figure 1: Various fractured rotary files (courtesy Dr. Bhumika Kapoor)

Click here to view


Canal anatomy

Studies have shown that more the complicated canal anatomy more the chances of instrument separation. The chances of instrument fracture is more in molars,[21],[22] especially in mesial canals of mandibular molars.[23],[24] Apical third is more subjected to instrument separation than coronal and middle third.[21] Pronounced root curvatures lead to increase the chances of separation of instruments as there will be greater cyclic fatigue [5] [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Two root canals of a molar have the same Shneider canal curvature, but measured different angles using the canal access angles (Adopted from Gunday M)

Click here to view


However, radius of canal curvature is more significant in instrument fracture than angle at which canal curves. When it decreases there are higher chances of file separation.[25] A reduction in the radius of curvature reduces the instrument's ability to resist torsional forces.[26],[27]


  Instrument Design (Size and Cross-Sectional Shape) Top


The instrument design can affect the instrument resistance to fracture. Larger files have larger cross section, which permits them to cut more dentin. However, stress accumulation is more in such files which leads to cyclic fatigue. On the other side, large diameter files are more resistant to torsional force. A finite element analysis method showed that the model became more torque-resistant when the area of the inner core of the cross section increased.[28] As, the diameter of file increases, the force needed to fracture also increases.[29] While increase in taper decreases resistance to fracture.[30],[31] Instruments of square type cross section were more resistant to bending forces as compared to instruments with rhomboid type cross section.[32] Similarly, triangular cross-sectional shape were more resistant to failure than S shaped files and H-type cross-section.

Triangular triple-helix design are not as flexible as U-flute design and smaller cross-sectional area files but more resistant when subjected to torsional stress.[33],[34] The triangular ProTaper instruments are stronger and they resist external forces effectively, this is because the stress distribution is lower and even in ProTaper instruments as compared to U-fluted ProFile instruments.[34] Schäfer et al.[35] reported the relationship between cross-sectional area and flexibility of NiTi instruments. They included FlexMaster, Hero 642, K3, ProFile, and RaCe, and found that the ProFile and RaCe instruments were most flexible, whereas K3 instruments were the stiffest as it had largest cross section.

Torque

The torque generated in small canals is higher than canals with large diameter.[36] When a high torque is used, the instrument becomes very active and the chances of instrument locking increases. This leads to deformation of file and separation tends to increase.[37] Small diameter files and files in acutely curved canals have more tendency to separate in the canal.[26] When practitioners use low torque (<1 N/cm), the chances of fracture is less than when used at high torque values (>3 N/cm).[37] When the diameter of file increases then torque required to unwind or to fracture also increases.[29]

Yared et al.[38],[39] observed that high torque was safe for experienced operators and that most benefit from low-torque controlled motors. However, it must be kept in mind that the torque values indicated on various electric motors may be unreliable.[40],[41],[42]

Light apical pressure and brief use of instruments causes less fracture of rotary NiTi instruments,[43] as compared to continuous pecking motion.[44]

[Figure 3] demonstrates failures in TF and profile.
Figure 3: Fractographic analysis of rotary nickel titanium instruments. For overloading fractures of Twisted files (A) and ProFile (B) samples, peripheral smooth (black arrows) and central dimpled (white arrow) areas are visible. For fatigue failures of PF samples (C), multiple striations (a) and surface pattern with dimples and cones (b) are observed in the same fracture plane (courtesy Dr. Haw-Ming Huang)

Click here to view


Speed of rotation

There is a general consensus that instrument separation is more frequent at high speed of rotation as compared to low speed of rotation. A higher rate of fracture was reported when high speed 300–350 rpm was used.[45] Other studies have demonstrated that there is no effect of speed rotation on file separation.[38],[46] However, time required for the failure decreases as speed of rotation increases.[44],[45],[46],[47] Most rotary instruments work at a speed of 150–350 rpm and it is important for the clinicians to use different files under the recommended speed provided by the manufacturers.

Metal alloy

The properties of various instruments are different due different metal composition. SS instruments are preferable over carbon steel instruments.[48] NiTi instruments have an advantage of flexibility and superior resistance to torsional fracture than SS.[49]

Manufacturing process

Visual examination of files should be done before using them into canals because sometimes file fractures due to inherent manufacturing defect. During manufacturing process, various inclusion particles like oxide particles get incorporated on metal surface. Such particles act as a nucleating site for propagation of various microcracks.[50] Sometimes microvoids are also formed on the surface due to inclusion oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon [12],[51] [Figure 4]. Further cracks may propagate along these defects.[52] Surface irregularities are found more on files that are manufactured using complex procedures such as greater taper files.[53] In a study conducted by Alapati et al., it was concluded that cracks propagate perpendicular to the long direction of instrument.[12] He also observed in another study that the dentinal debris that gets lodged into files can cause widening of cracks.[54] Various manufacturing procedures such as heat treatment and cold working can cause brittleness in some areas that can develop cracks.[55] Such areas when exposed to loading and unloading of the instrument results in phase transition between austentic and martensitic. This further effects the mechanical properties of the instrument.[56]
Figure 4: Scanning electron microscope image of the fracture surface of a ProTaper rotary instrument, showing elongated dimples indicative of ductile fracture and secondary phase particles which may be nickeltitanium oxides (original magnification, 2500; scale bar length, 6 m)

Click here to view


There are certain methods which can increase the strength of the instrument. Such methods include electropolishing,[57] deposition of titanium nitride by chemical vapors [58] and physical vapor deposition,[59] ion implantation,[60] and cryogenic treatment.[61]

Such treatments may have a promising result but chances of instrument separation may be still present.


  Instrumentation Technique Top


It is recommended to use different designs, techniques and taper files to reduce stresses on individual file.[62] Using a number of different taper files is safer than a single taper file. However, the number of files increases in this case but the lifespan of each file increases.

Preflaring of the canal creates a glide path which causes ease of instrumentation.[63] Preflaring of canal before the use of rotary files increases the lifespan of the files. It helps to understand the anatomy of the canal. Furthermore, it reduces the torsional stresses on the file. Another way of reducing the fracture is by using rotary files in wet canals only. Use of chelating agents like ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid not only removes the smear layer but also provides lubrication which reduces the chances of fracture. The use of different irrigants can cause corrosion on surface of file and hence weakening of the file. Such areas which may become site for microcrack propagation.


  Sterilization Top


The effect of sterilization on fracture resistance of file is not well understood. Some studies show that there is no effect of sterilization [64],[65] but others suggest that there are significant changes.[66] The thermocycling procedures results in metal fatigue. However, such studies do not simulate clinical conditions. Files that are immersed in 5.25% sodium hypochlorite have less fracture resistance when they underwent cyclic fatigue.[67] Sodium hypochlorite removes organic layer from files. It has broad antimicrobial activity. For proper cleaning strength of sodium hypochlorite should be balanced against its potential damage to corrode the files. Haïkel et al. demonstrated using scanning electron microscope that no corrosion products were seen after immersing files for 12 h and 48 h in 2.5% NaOCl.[68] Busslinger et al. showed that only slight amount of titanium was released from NiTi instruments after immersion in ultrasonicated 1% NaOCl for 1 h.[69]


  Types of Handpieces Top


Air driven and electric handpieces are used in endodontics for instrumentation. The use of electric handpieces enable the clinician to control the torque according to individual case.

Impact on prognosis

In 2005, Spili et al.,[13] did a study to find out the influence of retained fractured rotary NiTi instruments on the prognosis of endodontic treatment. One hundred and forty-six teeth were selected that had retained instrument. One hundred and forty-six matched controls were selected. The clinical and radiographic follow-up of 1 year was performed. Healing rates were very high in both cases with a fractured instrument (91.8%) and for the matched controls (94.5%). Healing was low in both fractured instrument (86.7%) and control groups (92.9%) when a preoperative periapical radiolucency was present. Thus, it was concluded that the presence of a preoperative periapical radiolucency rather than the fractured instrument has an impact on prognosis.

Fox et al.[70] conducted a study to evaluate the intentional obturation of root canals with separated files. Two years follow up of 304 molars was done in which 33% of cases files were accidentally separated and 67% of cases intentionally separated. It was concluded that presence of periapical radiolucency rather than file separation had a negative factor on healing after completion of endodontic treatment. The author also hypothesized that broken instrument itself could serve as an adequate root canal filling.

Crump and Natkin [6] conducted a well-controlled clinical study. One hundred and seventy-eight cases out of 8500 endodontic cases that were predominantly obturated with silver cone were found to have a retained fractured hand instrument. These instruments were separated within 1 mm of radiographic apex and only 2 were bypassed. The 178 fractured-instrument cases were matched with nonfractured-instrument controls for four variables. One of the variable that was included was presence or absence of a preoperative periapical lesion. Fifty-three controls were selected and 2 years follow up was done. After 2 years, clinical and radiographic assessment it was concluded that no statistically significant difference in failure rates between the fractured-instrument and control groups was found. In addition, it was concluded that inadequate size of apical preparation and apical extent of the fractured instrument, had no impact on prognosis.

Molyvdas et al.[71] followed 46 root canal filled teeth over 32 months. Sixty-six canals were inspected having 70 retained instruments. It was concluded that there was negative prognostic influence of preexisting periapical pathology in such cases. In this study, healing in vital and necrotic teeth were also distinguished and it was seen to be 100% and 75%, respectively. It was concluded that prognosis was better in those cases where file was bypassed. Ingle at al concluded in their study that treatment outcome was unaffected by a retained fractured instrument.[72] 1229 cases were recalled for 2 years, of these 104 showed failure. Only one case could be attributed to failure due to instrument separation.

Removal techniques

The removal of retained instruments is very difficult procedure. Various techniques and devices are available such as Masserann Kit,[73] Endo Extractor,[74],[75] wire loop technique,[76] the Canal Finder System,[77] long-shank burs and ophthalmic needle-holders,[78] and ultrasonic devices.[79],[80],[81]

However, use of these techniques has certain limitations. The chances of perforations, ledging, extrusion of fractured segment beyond apex, and chances of excess dentin removal increases. Hence, these techniques should be used when only fractures segment is in coronal or middle third of canal, fractured segment is not at or beyond the canal curvature. More the apical position of instrument more is the chance of root perforation.[82]

With the advent of dental operating microscope, ultrasonic tips and instrument removal system the chances of instrumental retrieval have increased.[83],[84]

It should be kept in mind that straight line access is mandatory for instrument retrieval.

Retrieving the fractured segment should be first preference [Figure 5], however if that cannot be achieved then the instrument should be bypassed. If the instrument is separated in initial stages of biomechanical preparation then prognosis may be poor because microbial load is not reduced. However, if instrument is separated at a later stage when disinfection is almost complete then prognosis is good as microbial load is sufficiently reduced.[85]
Figure 5: Radiographs demonstrating removal of a fractured rotary nickel titanium instrument with minimal dentin sacrifice. (a) At time of fracture, (b) immediately after removal, (c) immediately after completion of endodontic treatment (courtesy of Dr. Jeff Ward)

Click here to view


Dentolegal implications

Fracture of instrument is not a rare finding. However, frequency is not much. If such an incident occurs then the patient should be well informed about this and it should be mentioned in the patient card. Good communication with the patient should be maintained and records should be kept. Patient should be kept on follow up in such cases.


  Conclusion Top


Rotary files should be used according to manufacturer's instructions. Overzealous preparations and forceful application of apical pressure should be avoided. The preoperative radiographs should be evaluated for knowing the canal anatomy. The presence of preoperative apical periodontitis is confounding factor in prognosis rather than fractured instrument. Every attempt should be made for retrieval of separated instrument. The risk versus benefit ratio should be measured. Bypassing the instrument and leaving the instrument are other available options in case of disinfected canal. The patient must always be informed of the presence of the separated fragment and proposed management, if any.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Gambarini G. Cyclic fatigue of ProFile rotary instruments after prolonged clinical use. Int Endod J 2001;34:386 9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Parashos P, Messer HH. Questionnaire survey on the use of rotary nickel titanium endodontic instruments by Australian dentists. Int Endod J 2004;37:249 59.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Ankrum MT, Hartwell GR, Truitt JE. K3 Endo, ProTaper, and ProFile systems: Breakage and distortion in severely curved roots of molars. J Endod 2004;30:234 7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Arens FC, Hoen MM, Steiman HR, Dietz GC Jr. Evaluation of single use rotary nickel titanium instruments. J Endod 2003;29:664 6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL Jr. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 1997;23:77 85.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Crump MC, Natkin E. Relationship of broken root canal instruments to endodontic case prognosis: A clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc 1970;80:1341 7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Al Fouzan KS. Incidence of rotary ProFile instrument fracture and the potential for bypassing in vivo. Int Endod J 2003;36:864 7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Pettiette MT, Conner D, Trope M. Procedural errors with the use of nickel titanium rotary instruments in undergraduate endodontics. J Endod 2002;28:259.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Rowan MB, Nicholls JI, Steiner J. Torsional properties of stainless steel and nickel titanium endodontic files. J Endod 1996;22:341 5.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel titanium files after clinical use. J Endod 2000;26:161 5.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Parashos P, Gordon I, Messer HH. Factors influencing defects of rotary nickel titanium endodontic instruments after clinical use. J Endod 2004;30:722 5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Svec TA, Powers JM, Nusstein JM, Daehn GS. SEM observations of nickel titanium rotary endodontic instruments that fractured during clinical Use. J Endod 2005;31:40 3.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Spili P, Parashos P, Messer HH. The impact of instrument fracture on outcome of endodontic treatment. J Endod 2005;31:845 50.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Bahia MG, Buono VT. Decrease in the fatigue resistance of nickel titanium rotary instruments after clinical use in curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:249 55.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Yared G, Kulkarni GK, Ghossayn F. An in vitro study of the torsional properties of new and used K3 instruments. Int Endod J 2003;36:764 9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Yared G. In vitro study of the torsional properties of new and used ProFile nickel titanium rotary files. J Endod 2004;30:410 2.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Fife D, Gambarini G, Britto LR. Cyclic fatigue testing of ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments after clinical use. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;97:251 6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Parashos P, Messer HH. Rotary NiTi instrument fracture and its consequences. J Endod 2006;32:1031 43.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Yared GM, Bou Dagher FE, Machtou P. Cyclic fatigue of Profile rotary instruments after simulated clinical use. Int Endod J 1999;32:115 9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Svec TA, Powers JM. The deterioration of rotary nickel titanium files under controlled conditions. J Endod 2002;28:105 7.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Iqbal MK, Kohli MR, Kim JS. A retrospective clinical study of incidence of root canal instrument separation in an endodontics graduate program: A PennEndo database study. J Endod 2006;32:1048 52.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Peng B, Shen Y, Cheung GS, Xia TJ. Defects in ProTaper S1 instruments after clinical use: Longitudinal examination. Int Endod J 2005;38:550 7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Ward JR, Parashos P, Messer HH. Evaluation of an ultrasonic technique to remove fractured rotary nickel titanium endodontic instruments from root canals: An experimental study. J Endod 2003;29:756 63.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Hülsmann M, Schinkel I. Influence of several factors on the success or failure of removal of fractured instruments from the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol 1999;15:252 8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Patiño PV, Biedma BM, Liébana CR, Cantatore G, Bahillo JG. The influence of a manual glide path on the separation rate of NiTi rotary instruments. J Endod 2005;31:114 6.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Booth JR, Scheetz JP, Lemons JE, Eleazer PD. A comparison of torque required to fracture three different nickel titanium rotary instruments around curves of the same angle but of different radius when bound at the tip. J Endod 2003;29:55 7.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Best S, Watson P, Pilliar R, Kulkarni GG, Yared G. Torsional fatigue and endurance limit of a size 30.06 ProFile rotary instrument. Int Endod J 2004;37:370 3.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Xu X, Eng M, Zheng Y, Eng D. Comparative study of torsional and bending properties for six models of nickel titanium root canal instruments with different cross sections. J Endod 2006;32:372 5.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Guilford WL, Lemons JE, Eleazer PD. A comparison of torque required to fracture rotary files with tips bound in simulated curved canal. J Endod 2005;31:468 70.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Wolcott J, Himel VT. Torsional properties of nickel titanium versus stainless steel endodontic files. J Endod 1997;23:217 20.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Haïkel Y, Serfaty R, Bateman G, Senger B, Allemann C. Dynamic and cyclic fatigue of engine driven rotary nickel titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 1999;25:434 40.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Schäfer E, Tepel J. Relationship between design features of endodontic instruments and their properties. Part 3. Resistance to bending and fracture. J Endod 2001;27:299 303.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Turpin YL, Chagneau F, Vulcain JM. Impact of two theoretical cross sections on torsional and bending stresses of nickel titanium root canal instrument models. J Endod 2000;26:414 7.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Gaviglio I, Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus ProFile. J Endod 2003;29:15 9.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Schäfer E, Dzepina A, Danesh G. Bending properties of rotary nickel titanium instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96:757 63.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Sattapan B, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Torque during canal instrumentation using rotary nickel titanium files. J Endod 2000;26:156 60.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Gambarini G. Cyclic fatigue of nickel titanium rotary instruments after clinical use with low and high torque endodontic motors. J Endod 2001;27:772 4.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Yared GM, Dagher FE, Machtou P, Kulkarni GK. Influence of rotational speed, torque and operator proficiency on failure of Greater Taper files. Int Endod J 2002;35:7 12.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Yared G, Sleiman P. Failure of ProFile instruments used with air, high torque control, and low torque control motors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:92 6.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Yared G, Kulkarni GK. Accuracy of the Nouvag torque control motor for nickel titanium rotary instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;97:499 501.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Yared G, Kulkarni GK. Accuracy of the DTC torque control motor for nickel titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004;37:399 402.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Yared G, Kulkarni GK. Accuracy of the TCM Endo III torque control motor for nickel titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2004;30:644 5.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Yared GM, Bou Dagher FE, Machtou P. Cyclic fatigue of ProFile rotary instruments after clinical use. Int Endod J 2000;33:204 7.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Li UM, Lee BS, Shih CT, Lan WH, Lin CP. Cyclic fatigue of endodontic nickel titanium rotary instruments: Static and dynamic tests. J Endod 2002;28:448 51.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Martín B, Zelada G, Varela P, Bahillo JG, Magán F, Ahn S, et al. Factors influencing the fracture of nickel titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2003;36:262 6.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Poulsen WB, Dove SB, del Rio CE. Effect of nickel titanium engine driven instrument rotational speed on root canal morphology. J Endod 1995;21:609 12.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Zelada G, Varela P, Martín B, Bahíllo JG, Magán F, Ahn S. The effect of rotational speed and the curvature of root canals on the breakage of rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod 2002;28:540 2.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Grossman LI. Guidelines for the prevention of fracture of root canal instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1969;28:746 52.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988;14:346 51.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Marending M, Lutz F, Barbakow F. Scanning electron microscope appearances of Lightspeed instruments used clinically: A pilot study. Int Endod J 1998;31:57 62.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Filipi P. Titanium nickel shape memory alloys in medical applications. In: Brunette D, Tengvall P, Textor M, Thomsen P, editors. Titanium in Medicine: Material Science, Surface Science, Engineering, Biological Responses and Medical Applications. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer; 2001. p. 54 69.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
LeMay I. Failure mechanisms and metallography: A review. In: McCall J, French P, editors. Metallography in Failure Analysis. New York: Plenum Press; 1978. p. 1 31.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Valois CR, Silva LP, Azevedo RB. Atomic force microscopy study of stainless steel and nickel titanium files. J Endod 2005;31:882 5.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Svec TA, Powers JM, Nusstein JM, Daehn GS. Proposed role of embedded dentin chips for the clinical failure of nickel titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2004;30:339 41.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Kuhn G, Tavernier B, Jordan L. Influence of structure on nickel titanium endodontic instruments failure. J Endod 2001;27:516 20.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Miyai K, Ebihara A, Hayashi Y, Doi H, Suda H, Yoneyama T. Influence of phase transformation on the torsional and bending properties of nickel titanium rotary endodontic instruments. Int Endod J 2006;39:119 26.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Lausmaa J. Mechanical, thermal, chemical and electrochemical surface treatment of titanium. In: Brunette DM, Tengvall P, Textor M, Thomsen P, editors. Titanium in Medicine. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer; 2001. p. 247 8.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Schäfer E. Effect of sterilization on the cutting efficiency of PVD coated nickel titanium endodontic instruments. Int Endod J 2002;35:867 72.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Schäfer E. Effect of physical vapor deposition on cutting efficiency of nickel titanium files. J Endod 2002;28:800 2.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Rapisarda E, Bonaccorso A, Tripi TR, Condorelli GG, Torrisi L. Wear of nickel titanium endodontic instruments evaluated by scanning electron microscopy: Effect of ion implantation. J Endod 2001;27:588 92.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Kim JW, Griggs JA, Regan JD, Ellis RA, Cai Z. Effect of cryogenic treatment on nickel titanium endodontic instruments. Int Endod J 2005;38:364 71.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Schrader C, Peters OA. Analysis of torque and force with differently tapered rotary endodontic instruments in vitro. J Endod 2005;31:120 3.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Tan BT, Messer HH. The effect of instrument type and preflaring on apical file size determination. Int Endod J 2002;35:752 8.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Stokes OW, Fiore PM, Barss JT, Koerber A, Gilbert JL, Lautenschlager EP. Corrosion in stainless steel and nickel titanium files. J Endod 1999;25:17 20.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Hilt BR, Cunningham CJ, Shen C, Richards N. Torsional properties of stainless steel and nickel titanium files after multiple autoclave sterilizations. J Endod 2000;26:76 80.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Viana AC, Gonzalez BM, Buono VT, Bahia MG. Influence of sterilization on mechanical properties and fatigue resistance of nickel titanium rotary endodontic instruments. Int Endod J 2006;39:709 15.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Berutti E, Angelini E, Rigolone M, Migliaretti G, Pasqualini D. Influence of sodium hypochlorite on fracture properties and corrosion of ProTaper Rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2006;39:693 9.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Haïkel Y, Serfaty R, Wilson P, Speisser JM, Allemann C. Mechanical properties of nickel titanium endodontic instruments and the effect of sodium hypochlorite treatment. J Endod 1998;24:731 5.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Busslinger A, Sener B, Barbakow F. Effects of sodium hypochlorite on nickel titanium Lightspeed instruments. Int Endod J 1998;31:290 4.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Fox J, Moodnik RM, Greenfield E, Atkinson JS. Filing root canals with files radiographic evaluation of 304 cases. N Y State Dent J 1972;38:154 7.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Molyvdas I, Lambrianidis T, Zervas P, Veis A. Clinical study on the prognosis of endodontic treatment of teeth with broken instruments. Stoma 1992;20:63.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Ingle JI, Glick DH. Endodontic success and failure. In: Ingle JI, editor. Endodontics. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1965. p. 54 76.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Masserann J. New method for extracting metallic fragments from canals. Inf Dent 1972;54:3987 4005.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Gettleman BH, Spriggs KA, ElDeeb ME, Messer HH. Removal of canal obstructions with the Endo Extractor. J Endod 1991;17:608 11.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Coutinho Filho T, Krebs RL, Berlinck TC, Galindo RG. Retrieval of a broken endodontic instrument using cyanoacrylate adhesive. Case report. Braz Dent J 1998;9:57 60.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Hülsmann M. Methods for removing metal obstructions from the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol 1993;9:223 37.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Fors UG, Berg JO. A method for the removal of broken endodontic instruments from root canals. J Endod 1983;9:156 9.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Gaffney JL, Lehman JW, Miles MJ. Expanded use of the ultrasonic scaler. J Endod 1981;7:228 9.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Souyave LC, Inglis AT, Alcalay M. Removal of fractured endodontic instruments using ultrasonics. Br Dent J 1985;159:251 3.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Nagai O, Tani N, Kayaba Y, Kodama S, Osada T. Ultrasonic removal of broken instruments in root canals. Int Endod J 1986;19:298 304.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Hülsmann M. Removal of fractured instruments using a combined automated/ultrasonic technique. J Endod 1994;20:144 7.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Suter B, Lussi A, Sequeira P. Probability of removing fractured instruments from root canals. Int Endod J 2005;38:112 23.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Ruddle CJ. Micro endodontic nonsurgical retreatment. Dent Clin North Am 1997;41:429 54.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
Ruddle CJ. Broken instrument removal. The endodontic challenge. Dent Today 2002;21:70 2, 74, 76.  Back to cited text no. 84
    
85.
Sigurdsson A. Evaluation of success and failure. In: Walton RE, Torabinejad M, editors. Principles and Practice of Endodontics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.; 2002. p. 331 44.  Back to cited text no. 85
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Prevalence
Nickel Titanium ...
Predisposing Fac...
Instrument Desig...
Instrumentation ...
Sterilization
Types of Handpieces
Conclusion
References
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed383    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded61    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]