LAUSR

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of R-Pilot (VDW; Munich, Germany) with ProGlider (Denstply Sirona; Ballaigues, Switzerland) and WaveOne Gold Glider (Denstply Sirona; Ballaigues, Switzerland) glide path instruments.Materials and methodsR-Pilot, ProGlider, and WaveOne Gold Glider instruments were collected (n = 15) and tested in a dynamic cyclic fatigue test device, which has an artificial canal with 60° angle of curvature and a 5-mm radius of curvature. All instruments were operated until fracture occurred, and both time to fracture (TF) and the lengths of the fractured fragments were recorded. Mean and standard deviations of TF and fragment length were calculated for each reciprocating system. TF data and fractured fragment length data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (P < 0.05). Also a Weibull analysis was performed on TF data.ResultsThe cyclic fatigue resistance values of the WaveOne Gold Glider and R-Pilot were significantly higher than those of the ProGlider (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between them (P > 0.05). Weibull analysis revealed that WaveOne Gold Glider showed the highest predicted TF value for 99% survival rate, which was followed by R-Pilot and ProGlider. Regarding the length of the fractured tips, there were no significant differences among the instruments (P > 0.05).ConclusionsThe reciprocating WaveOne Gold Glider and R-Pilot instruments had significantly higher cyclic fatigue resistance than rotary ProGlider instruments.Clinical relevanceThis study reported that novel reciprocating glide path instruments exhibited higher cyclic fatigue resistance than rotating glide path instrument.