Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIM: To evaluate the failure mechanism of ProTaper Ni-Ti rotary instruments fractured under clinical conditions. METHODOLOGY: A total of 46 ProTaper instruments that failed (fractured and/or plastically deformed) during the clinical use were collected from various dental clinics, whereas a new set of ProTaper instruments served as control. After inspection under stereomicroscopy the instruments were classified into three categories: (i) plastically deformed but not fractured, (ii) fractured with plastic deformation and (iii) fractured without plastic deformation. Three instruments from each group were analysed with computerized X-ray microtomography (micro-XCT) to detect surface and internal defects, whilst all the fracture surfaces were investigated under SEM. RESULTS: Stereomicroscopic inspection showed that 17.4% of the discarded instruments were only plastically deformed, 8.7% were fractured with plastic deformation and 73.9% were fractured without plastic deformation. Micro-XCT revealed instruments without any surface or bulk defects along with a few files with crack development below the fracture surface. No defects were identified in the unused instruments. SEM examination of fractured surfaces demonstrated the presence of dimples and cones, a typical pattern of dimple rupture developed because of ductile failure. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that a single overloading event causing ductile fracture of ProTaper instruments is the most common fracture mechanism encountered under the clinical conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spanaki‐Voreadi et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: