Journal List > J Korean Acad Conserv Dent > v.33(4) > 1056309

Kim, Lee, Kim, Park, Hur, and Kim: Stress distribution of three NiTi rotary files under bending and torsional conditions using 3-dimensional finite element analysis

Abstract

Flexibility and fracture properties determine the performance of NiTi rotary instruments. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how geometrical differences between three NiTi instruments affect the deformation and stress distributions under bending and torsional conditions using finite element analysis.
Three NiTi files (ProFile .06 / #30, F3 of ProTaper and ProTaper Universal) were scanned using a Micro-CT. The obtained structural geometries were meshed with linear, eight-noded hexahedral elements. The mechanical behavior (deformation and von Mises equivalent stress) of the three endodontic instruments were analyzed under four bending and rotational conditions using ABAQUS finite element analysis software. The nonlinear mechanical behavior of the NiTi was taken into account.
The U-shaped cross sectional geometry of ProFile showed the highest flexibility of the three file models. The ProTaper, which has a convex triangular cross-section, was the most stiff file model. For the same deflection, the ProTaper required more force to reach the same deflection as the other models, and needed more torque than other models for the same amount of rotation. The highest von Mises stress value was found at the groove area in the cross-section of the ProTaper Universal.
Under torsion, all files showed highest stresses at their groove area. The ProFile showed highest von Mises stress value under the same torsional moment while the ProTaper Universal showed the highest value under same rotational angle.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
Cross-sectional and longitudinal geometry of three NiTi files. A; ProFile .06 / #30, B; ProTaper F3, C; ProTaper Universal F3.
jkacd-33-323-g001
Figure 2
Final FE models of three NiTi files used in this study: A; ProFile .06 / #30, B; ProTaper F3, C; ProTaper Universal F3.
jkacd-33-323-g002
Figure 3
The stress-strain curve of the NiTi material22).
jkacd-33-323-g003
Figure 4
Simulated conditions used in this study: A; The simulated condition of free-end loading of 1 N, B; The simulated condition of same bending distance, C; The torsional condition of 2.5 Nmm with 4 mm fixation, D; The same rotational condition of 10° with 4 mm fixation.
jkacd-33-323-g004
Figure 5
The deflection and stress distribution under the free-end loading. A; ProFile .06 / #30, B; ProTaper F3, C; ProTaper Universal F3.
jkacd-33-323-g005
Figure 6
Horizontal row A shows the von Mises stress distribution under the condition of 2 mm deflection. Row B shows the von Mises stress distribution under the condition of 2.5 Nmm torsional moments. Row C shows the von Mises stress distribution under the condition of same rotational angle.
jkacd-33-323-g006
Figure 7
Graph A showing the bending moment needed to deflect. Graph B showing the torque required to rotate the file under the restrained condition.
jkacd-33-323-g007
Table 1
Calculated deformation and maximum von Mises equivalent stress results for three NiTi rotary instruments under four loading conditions. Location of the bending deformation was at the tip of the file, the maximum stress concentration locations were measured from file tip
jkacd-33-323-i001

References

1. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 1988. 14:346–351.
crossref
2. Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1995. 21:146–151.
crossref
3. Schäfer E, Schulz-Bongert U, Tulus G. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod. 2004. 30:432–435.
crossref
4. Chen JL, Messer HH. A comparison of stainless steel hand and rotary nickel-titanium instrumentation using a silicone impression technique. Aust Dent J. 2002. 47:12–20.
crossref
5. Garip Y, Gunday M. The use of computed tomography when comparing nickel-titanium and stainless steel files during preparation of simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2001. 34:452–457.
crossref
6. Schäfe E. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments and stainless steel hand K-Flexofiles in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001. 92:215–220.
crossref
7. Hata G, Uemura M, Kato AS, Imura N, Novo NF, Toda T. A comparison of shaping ability using ProFile, GT file, and Flex-R endodontic instruments in simulated canals. J Endod. 2002. 28:316–321.
crossref
8. Ankrum MT, Hartwell GR, Trutt JE. K3 Endo, ProTaper, and ProFile systems: breakage and distortion in severely curved root of molars. J Endod. 2004. 30:234–237.
crossref
9. Kim HC, Park JK, Hur B. Relative efficacy of three Ni-Ti file systems used by undergraduates. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2005. 30:38–48.
crossref
10. Walsch H. The hybrid concept of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation. Dent Clin North Am. 2004. 48:183–202.
crossref
11. Park SH, Cho KM, Kim JW. The Efficiency of the Ni-Ti Rotary files in Curved Simulated Canals Shaped by Novice Operators. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2003. 28:146–155.
crossref
12. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, Wevers M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2003. 36:288–295.
crossref
13. Clauder T, Baumann MA. ProTaper NT system. Dent Clin North Am. 2004. 48:87–111.
crossref
14. Calberson FL, Deroose CA, Hommez GM, De Moor RJ. Shaping ability of ProTaper nickel-titanium files in simulated resin root canals. Int Endod J. 2004. 37:613–623.
crossref
15. Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abilities of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003. 95:228–233.
crossref
16. Schäfe E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2004. 37:229–238.
crossref
17. Grande NM, Plotino G, Pecci R, Bedini R, Malagnino VA, Somma F. Cyclic fatigue resistance and three-dimensional analysis of instruments from two nickel-titanium rotary systems. Int Endod J. 2006. 39:755–763.
crossref
18. Martín B, Zelada G, Varela P, Bahillo JG, Magán F, Ahn S, Rodríguez C. Factors influencing the fracture of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2003. 36:262–266.
crossref
19. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod. 2000. 26:161–165.
crossref
20. 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. 29:15–19.
crossref
21. Camps JJ, Pertot WJ, Levallois B. Relationship between file size and stiffness of nickel titanium instruments. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1995. 11:270–273.
crossref
22. Wang GZ. A finite element analysis of evolution of stress-strain and martensite transformation in front of a notch in shape memory alloy NiTi. Mater Sci Eng A Struct Mater. 2007. 460-461:383–391.
crossref
23. Tripi TR, Bonaccorso A, Condorelli GG. Cyclic fatigue of different nickel-titanium endodontic rotary instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006. 102:e106–e114.
crossref
24. Best S, Watson P, Pilliar R, Kulkarni GGK, Yared G. Torsional fatigue and endurance limit of a size 30.06 ProFile rotary instrument. Int Endod J. 2004. 37:370–373.
crossref
25. Plotino G, Grande NM, Sorci E, Malagnino VA, Somma F. Influence of a brushing working motion on the fatigue life of NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2007. 40:45–51.
crossref
26. Hübscher W, Barbakow F, Peters OA. Root canal preparation with FlexMaster: assessment of torque and force in relation to canal anatomy. Int Endod J. 2003. 36:883–890.
crossref
27. Peters OA, Peters CI, Schonenberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: assessment of torque and force in relation to canal anatomy. Int Endod J. 2003. 36:93–99.
crossref
28. Boessler C, Peters OA, Zehnder M. Impact of lubricant parameters on rotary instrument torque and force. J Endod. 2007. 33:280–283.
crossref
29. Shen Y, Bian Z, Cheung GS, Peng B. Analysis of defects in ProTaper hand-operated instruments after clinical use. J Endod. 2007. 33:287–290.
crossref
30. Lopes HP, Moreira EJ, Elias CN, de Almeida RA, Neves MS. Cyclic fatigue of ProTaper instruments. J Endod. 2007. 33:55–57.
crossref
31. Yao JH, Schwartz SA, Beeson TJ. Cyclic fatigue of three types of rotary nickel-titanium files in a dynamic model. J Endod. 2006. 32:55–57.
crossref
32. Ullmann CJ, Peters OA. Effect of cyclic fatigue on static fracture loads in ProTaper nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2005. 31:183–186.
crossref
33. Cheung GS, Peng B, Bian Z, Shen Y, Darvell BW. Defects in ProTaper S1 instruments after clinical use: fractographic examination. Int Endod J. 2005. 38:802–809.
crossref
34. 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. 26:414–417.
crossref
35. 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. 32:372–375.
crossref
36. Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN. Theory of Elasticity. 1970. McGraw-Hill.
37. Schäfer E, Dzepina A, Danesh G. Bending properties of rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003. 96:757–763.
crossref
38. Haikel Y, Serfaty R, Bateman G, Senger B, Allemann C. Dynamic and cyclic fatigue of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1999. 25:434–440.
crossref
39. Yared GM, Bou Dagher FE, Machtou P. Cyclic fatigue of ProFile rotary instruments after clinical use. Int Endod J. 2000. 33:204–207.
crossref
40. Shen Y, Cheung GS, Bian Z, Peng B. Comparison of defects in ProFile and ProTaper systems after clinical use. J Endod. 2006. 32:61–65.
crossref
41. Mandel E, Adib-Yazdi M, Benhamou LM, Lachkar T, Mesgouez C, Sobel M. Rotary Ni-Ti profile systems for preparing curved canals in resin blocks: influence of operator on instrument breakage. Int Endod J. 1999. 32:436–443.
crossref
42. Yared GM, Bou Dagher FE, Machtou P. Influence of rotational speed, torque and operator's proficiency on ProFile failures. Int Endod J. 2001. 34:47–53.
crossref
TOOLS
Similar articles