A Comparison of the Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Used and New Glide Path Files

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of used and new ProGlider (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and PathFile (Dentsply Maillefer) rotary glide path files. Methods Forty ProGlider and 40 PathFile #2 instruments were used in the present study. In group 1, 20 PathFile #2 files and, in group 2, 20 ProGlider files were used to prepare a total of 40 J-shaped transparent acrylic blocks. In group 3 (control group), 20 new PathFile files and, in group 4 (control group), 20 new ProGlider files were included. Cyclic fatigue testing of instruments was performed in a stainless steel artificial canal with a 5-mm radius of curvature and a 60° angle of curvature. All 80 instruments were rotated until fracture, and the number of cycles to failure (NCF) was recorded. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance to determine any statistical difference; the significance was determined at the 95% confidence level. Results The used glide path files’ NCF was lower than the new ones; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P > .05). The cyclic fatigue resistance of the used and new PathFile #2 files was statistically significantly higher than that of the ProGlider files (P < .05). Conclusions Within the limitations of the present study, the used glide path files' NCF was lower than the new ones; however, this difference was not statistically significant. © 2016 American Association of Endodontists