title: Comparative evaluation of the effects of multiple autoclaving on cyclic fatigue resistance of three different rotary Ni-Ti instruments: An in vitro study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate comparatively the effects of multiple autoclaving on surface topography and cyclic fatigue of three different rotary nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) instruments.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty-one files each of Twisted Files (TF), Revo-S, and RaCe were used in this study. They were grouped as group 1-TF, group 2-Revo-S, and group 3-RaCe. All the files were autoclaved and subjected for scanning electron microscopic analysis and cyclic fatigue analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Data were subjected to statistical analysis using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey's Kramer multiple comparison test. TF exhibited the highest cyclic fatigue resistance followed by Revo-S and RaCe. Scanning electron photomicrographs showed no obvious surface changes in the files after three autoclaving cycles.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Within the limitation of this study, it can be concluded that Twisted Files was the most fatigue resistant compared to Revo-S and RaCe, and multiple autoclaving cycles did not have any significant alterations in the cyclic fatigue resistance of rotary Ni-Ti files.
authors: Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, SRM Dental College & Hospital, SRM University, Chennai, India.
authors: Kanthimathinathan Meenakshi
authors: KM
authors: Sundaram
authors: Rajesh A V
authors: RA
authors: Ebenezar
authors: Mohamed Fayas
authors: MF
authors: Ghani
authors: Leena
authors: L
authors: Martina
authors: Ashwin
authors: A
authors: Narayanan
authors: Bejoy
authors: B
authors: Mony
keywords: Autoclaving; cyclic fatigue; rotary nickel titanium files
references: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010 Apr;109(4):622-8
references: 20303058
references: J Endod. 2000 Mar;26(3):161-5
references: 11199711
references: Int Endod J. 2001 Jul;34(5):386-9
references: 11482722
references: J Endod. 2010 Jan;36(1):147-52
references: 20003955
references: J Endod. 1996 Jun;22(6):321-2
references: 8934994
references: J Endod. 2002 Nov;28(11):765-9
references: 12470021
references: J Endod. 2008 Jun;34(6):743-7
references: 18498904
references: J Endod. 1998 Dec;24(12):843-7
references: 10023267
references: Int Endod J. 2007 Apr;40(4):247-53
references: 17284269
references: J Endod. 2009 Mar;35(3):401-3
references: 19249604
references: J Endod. 2008 Jul;34(7):859-62
references: 18570996
references: J Endod. 2000 Feb;26(2):76-80
references: 11194376
references: Int Endod J. 2006 Sep;39(9):709-15
references: 16916360
references: J Conserv Dent. 2011 Jul;14(3):282-6
references: 22025834
references: J Endod. 2011 Jan;37(1):72-4
references: 21146081
references: Int Endod J. 2000 Jul;33(4):297-310
references: 11307203
references: J Endod. 1997 Jan;23(1):15-8
references: 9594739
references: J Endod. 2008 Aug;34(8):1003-5
references: 18634935
references: J Endod. 2004 Oct;30(10):722-5
references: 15448468
references: J Endod. 1997 Dec;23(12):731-4
references: 9487847
references: J Endod. 1997 Feb;23(2):77-85
references: 9220735