Basic ResearchTechnology

Evaluation of the Impact of Raw Materials on the Fatigue and Mechanical Properties of ProFile Vortex Rotary Instruments
Yong Gao, PhD, James L. Gutmann, DDS, Kevin Wilkinson, BS, Randall Maxwell, BS, and Dan Ammon, PhD
Abstract
Introduction: In this in vitro study, raw materials (including stainless steel, conventional superelastic nickel-titanium [NiTi], M-Wire NiTi, and Vortex Blue NiTi) were used to create ProFile Vortex designed 25/ .06 instruments and subject these instruments to testing for fatigue resistance, torsional properties, exibility, and Vickers microhardness. The comparative results in this study will enable the clinicians understanding of the performance of these materials for better choices in application during endodontic procedures. Methods: Cyclic fatigue testing was performed by rotating les in an articially constructed stainless steel canal with a 5-mm radius and a 90 angle of curvature at 500 rpm. Torsional properties and exibility in bending were assessed according to specication ISO 3630-1. Vickers microhardness was measured on the cross section of instruments with 300-g load and 15-second dwell time. Results: There were signicant differences in the average fatigue life and exibility for instruments made of different materials (P < .05). Vortex Blue was ranked rst in both fatigue and exibility, followed by M-Wire, superelastic wire, and stainless steel. For torsional strength and microhardness, stainless steel and M-Wire were ranked rst and second, respectively. There was no statistically signicant difference between superelastic wire and Vortex Blue. Vortex Blue showed the greatest distortion angle at break, whereas the other 3 materials showed comparable degree of rotation in the torque test. Conclusions: Under the limitations of this study, NiTi shape memory alloy appeared to be a superior material option compared with stainless steel for its use in the application of endodontic rotary instruments. Vortex Blue and M-Wire offered functional advantages over conventional superelastic NiTi. Vortex Blue showed improved fatigue resistance and exibility compared with ProFile Vortex M-Wire. (J Endod 2012;38:398401)

Key Words
Endodontic instrument, exibility, material fatigue, M-Wire, nickel-titanium, ProFile Vortex, torque, Vickers microhardness, Vortex Blue

lthough endodontic instruments cannot fully clean the root canal system because of the highly variable root canal anatomy (14), instrument choices for canal shaping play a critical role in achieving the desired goal for obturation and for the prevention of ledging, canal transportation, le separation, and conservation of root structure (5 10). In the early 1900s, the rst hand les/reamers used in endodontics were made of steels (carbon steel and stainless steel). Carbon steel les were quickly abandoned because of their poor corrosion resistance, and stainless steel les have limited exibility because of high stiffness (Youngs modulus, $200 GPa). Since the discovery of nickel-titanium (NiTi) shape memory alloy in the early 1960s (11), there has been an increasing number of medical applications because of its superelasticity, shape memory effect, and excellent biocompatibility. After the rst evaluation in 1988 by Walia et al (12), endodontic les made of superelastic NiTi materials have been successfully introduced for root canal treatment. Subsequently, the development of NiTi instruments as engine-driven rotary devices has further improved the efciency and quality of root canal treatments (5, 1315). In the last 10 years there have been signicant enhancements in the design and control of the raw materials relative to microstructure, material properties, and manufacturing processes for endodontic instruments (1620). Enhancements in these areas of material management have led to the development of new endodontic instruments. ProFile Vortex M-Wire NiTi instruments (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) and Twisted Files (SybronEndo, Orange, CA) represent the second-generation NiTi alloys with improved exibility and fatigue resistance through novel manufacturing methods (1925). Although both of these newly developed instruments have been clinically successful, clinicians pursuit of continuous improvement in reliability, efcacy, and predictability of clinical outcome creates ever increasing challenges for the next-generation rotary instruments. Vortex Blue (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties), a newly developed NiTi rotary instrument through a proprietary thermomechanical process, has been designed to meet these new challenges with improved fatigue resistance, cutting efciency, exibility, and canalcentering capability. However, as more advanced NiTi endodontic les are being developed and produced by different manufacturers, understanding the nature of different raw materials and their impact on instrument performance has become more imperative for the clinician as it relates to instrument choice and achieving the desired outcome.

From Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Supported by Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties. Yong Gao, Kevin Wilkinson, Randall Maxwell, and Dan Ammon are afliated with Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties. James L. Gutmann is professor emeritus of Baylor College of Dentistry at Texas A&M Health Science Center and is currently a consultant with Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties. Address requests for reprints to Dr Yong Gao, Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, 5100 East Skelly Drive, Suite 300, Tulsa, OK 74135. E-mail address: yong.gao@ dentsply.com 0099-2399/$ - see front matter Copyright 2012 American Association of Endodontists. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2011.11.004

398

Gao et al.

JOE Volume 38, Number 3, March 2012

Basic ResearchTechnology
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of raw materials (including stainless steel, conventional superelastic NiTi, M-Wire NiTi, and Vortex Blue NiTi) on fatigue resistance, torsional properties, exibility, and Vickers microhardness of ProFile Vortex rotary instrument (25/.06). The comparative information in this study is intended to help clinicians better understand differences between various raw materials and facilitate good clinical choices to meet anatomical challenges. The null hypothesis was that there is no difference between raw materials.

Results
The means and standard deviations of test results on fatigue life, peak torque, angle of rotation, exibility, and Vickers microhardness are shown in Table 1.

Materials and Methods

Instruments with identical geometric design and different raw materials were used to minimize or negate the potential inuences that specic le designs might have on the outcomes of this study. On the basis of the design of ProFile Vortex instrument 25/.06 (tip size 25, taper 0.06, 25 mm in length), 4 different raw materials were selected, including 302 stainless steel (S-S), conventional superelastic NiTi (SE-wire), M-Wire NiTi (M-Wire), and prototype Vortex Blue NiTi (Blue).

Cyclic Fatigue The ranking in fatigue was the following: S-S < SE-wire < M-Wire < Blue. There were signicant differences in the average fatigue life for instruments made of different materials (P < .05). The average fatigue life (1027 cycles) of 3 NiTi instruments was an orderof-magnitude better than les made of stainless steel (67 cycles). Among 3 NiTi materials, Blue NiTi outperformed M-Wire by 40%, and M-Wire showed nearly 250% longer fatigue life than SE-wire. Torsional Properties The ranking in peak torque was the following: SE-wire = Blue < M-Wire < S-S. For peak torque in a twisting motion, stainless steel showed the highest value, which was nearly 30% higher than the second-ranking M-Wire. SE-wire and Blue NiTi exhibited the same average peak torque ($1 N$cm), which was $20% lower than M-Wire. The ranking in degree of rotation was the following: M-Wire = S-S = SE-wire < Blue. Blue NiTi showed the greatest distortion angle at break, whereas S-S, SE-wire, and M-Wire showed no signicant differences in degree of rotation. Flexibility The ranking in exibility (on the basis of the reciprocal of bending torque) was the following: S-S < SE-wire < M-Wire < Blue. Stainless steel showed the highest bending stiffness (2.87 N$cm), which was about 3 times the average value of all 3 selected NiTi materials. There was a statistically signicant difference between M-Wire and SE-wire (P < .01) as well as between Blue NiTi and M-Wire (P < .01). Blue NiTi showed the lowest stiffness in bending (0.77 N$cm), which was nearly 13% more exible than M-Wire. Vickers Microhardness The ranking in Vickers microhardness was the following: Blue = SE-wire < M-Wire < S-S. Stainless steel showed the highest hardness (560 Vickers hardness number [VHN]), which was $55% higher than the average hardness value (362 VHN) of 3 selected NiTi materials. M-Wire (390 VHN) was ranked second in microhardness and was $10% harder than SE-wire (353 VHN). There was no statistically signicant difference between SE-wire and Blue NiTi (P > .05).

Cyclic Fatigue Fifteen les for each raw material group were tested at 500 rpm in an articially constructed stainless steel canal with 5-mm radius and 90 angle of curvature at ambient temperature based on a design previously reported in fatigue testing (26). Lubrication oil was applied on instruments and grooved block-and-rod assembly to reduce friction during fatigue test. The time to instrument separation was recorded with a digital stopwatch with accuracy of 0.1 second. The total number of cycles to failure was calculated by using the rotational speed 500 rpm (8.33 revolutions per second) multiplied by the corresponding time to failure. Torque Test Ten les for each group were used in measurement of peak torque (N$cm) and angle of rotation (degree) at fracture according to ISO standard 3630-1 and American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association specication no. 28 by using a custom test xture. Three millimeters of the le tip was secured by soft brass blocks. Each instrument was rotated clockwise at a constant rotational speed of 2 rpm until fracture occurred. Peak torque (accuracy, 0.05 N$cm) and angle (accuracy, 1 ) of rotation to facture were recorded. Flexibility Test Ten les for each group were tested for exibility (MGT50Z; Electromatic Equipment Co Inc, Cedarhurst, NY) in accordance with ISO standard 3630-1. The apical 3 mm of the le was clamped, and bending torque (accuracy, 0.05 N$cm) was recorded when the le was bent 45 . Vickers Microhardness An apical segment of 4 mm in length was cut with a water-cooled diamond saw from all instruments for the Vickers microhardness test. These segments were mounted and polished by using standard metallographic preparation techniques (27). Vickers microhardness measurements were performed at ambient temperature with 300-g load and 15-second dwell time (401 MVD; Wilson Instruments, Norwood, MA). Ten micro-indentations were made for each instrument group. The signicance for all measurements above was assessed by using one-way analysis of variance, and then the Tukey test was used for individual comparisons at 95% signicance level.
JOE Volume 38, Number 3, March 2012

Discussion
File design such as size/taper, cross-sectional geometry, and pitch/ helical angle has a great inuence on le properties; therefore, instruments with identical geometric design but different raw materials were used to eliminate this inuence in the present study. Signicant variations exist in the raw materials used in the fabrication of endodontic instruments; therefore, it is important for clinicians to understand the differences and the properties of these materials to take advantage of the latest technology. With emphasis on a newly developed thermomechanically altered Vortex Blue NiTi instrument, the aim of this study was to evaluate the inuence of raw materials on the fatigue and mechanical properties by using a similar le design. Four representative raw materials used for endodontic les were investigated to identify potential 399

Impact of Raw Materials on Endodontic Rotary Instruments

Basic ResearchTechnology
TABLE 1. Statistical Analysis of Testing Results (n = 15 for fatigue test and n = 10 for all other tests) S-S
Fatigue life (cycle) Peak torque in twist (N$cm) Degree of rotation ( ) Flexibility (N$cm) Vickers microhardness (VHN) 67 11A 1.74 0.19E 368 69H 2.87 0.30J 559.5 9.1N

SE-wire
331 102B 1.00 0.10F 385 32H 1.10 0.08K 352.6 10.5O

M-wire
1142 179C 1.27 0.09G 367 54H 0.88 0.04L 390.0 7.9P

Blue
1609 269D 1.01 0.07F 457 47I 0.77 0.06M 344.5 7.6O

Data are expressed as mean standard deviation. Values with different superscript letters indicate a statistically signicant difference (P < .05).

advantages and limitations, including stainless steel and 3 NiTi alloys (superelastic NiTi, M-Wire NiTi, and Vortex Blue NiTi). To compare multiple variables and illustrate the comprehensive performance of 4 different raw materials, a radar chart method was used in this study. As shown in Figure 1, the radar chart consists of 3 axes representing the 3 most important properties for endodontic instrument application: fatigue life, peak torque, and exibility. Each axis was independently scaled to be between 0 and 1 by normalizing data (mean values in Table 1) on the basis of its biggest value, except for exibility being normalized on the basis of the reciprocal of bending torques. For comparison purposes, the covered area for each material was also calculated in the radar chart: S-S (0.14) < SE-wire (0.29) < M-Wire (0.77) < Blue (0.94). The radar chart in Figure 1 demonstrates that NiTi materials have more balanced properties than stainless steel, which has excellent torque strength but poor exibility and fatigue resistance that signicantly restrict its practical applicability for rotary instruments. Both Blue NiTi and M-Wire showed improved all-around performance when compared with conventional SE-wire. Between the top 2 materials, M-Wire held a slight edge over Blue NiTi in torque strength, but Blue NiTi showed a greater advantage over M-Wire in fatigue resistance and exibility. Furthermore, the greater ductility measured by the angular distortion might give Vortex Blue a higher safety factor because les showing more detectable distortion of the cutting spirals are more likely to be discarded before breakage (28). Along with the progress of raw materials, endodontic les showed a trend of continuous improvement in exibility and fracture resistance. To maximize their clinical potential, clinicians would expect to make corresponding adjustments during transitions either from stainless steel

hand les to rotary NiTi system or between rotary le systems featuring different NiTi materials. For example, because of its improved exibility Vortex Blue might need much less pressure applied against the canal wall than ProFile Vortex M-Wire les of the same size and taper. Surface engineering techniques have been shown to improve the surface hardness and wear resistance of NiTi instruments (2934). Vortex Blue instruments show unique blue-color compared with traditional superelastic NiTi instruments. The blue-color oxide surface layer of Vortex Blue le is a result of the proprietary manufacturing process. The hardness of titanium oxide (including anatase and rutile) on mineralogical scale (Mohs scale) is typically between 5.5 and 6.5 (35, 36), which is approximately in the range of 620970 VHN. Therefore, the relatively harder titanium oxide surface layer on the Vortex Blue instrument might compensate for the loss of hardness compared with ProFile Vortex M-Wire, while improving the cutting efciency or wear resistance. According to the average microhardness (67 VHN) of extracted vital teeth (37), the hardness of all 3 NiTi materials selected in this study should be sufcient (at least 5 times harder than dentin) for shaping and cleaning canal walls. The evolution of endodontic instruments hinges on new materials with optimized microstructures and associated processing technologies. Thermomechanical processing has been frequently used to optimize the microstructure and transformation behavior of NiTi alloys, which in turn have a great inuence on reliability and mechanical properties for NiTi les (17, 38). Future research endeavors will focus on understanding the microstructural differences among various NiTi alloys and the associated impact on relevant mechanical properties of these instruments.

Conclusion
Under the limitations of this study, NiTi shape memory alloy appeared to be a superior material option compared with stainless steel for its use in the manufacturing and application of endodontic rotary instruments. Vortex Blue NiTi and M-Wire offered functional advantages over conventional superelastic NiTi. Vortex Blue showed improved fatigue resistance and exibility compared with ProFile Vortex M-Wire.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Marcie Littleton and Chris Miller from Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties for their support in instrument preparation and testing.

References
Figure 1. Radar chart on fatigue life, peak torque, and exibility of ProFile Vortex 25/.06 instruments made of stainless steel (S-S), superelastic NiTi (SE-wire), M-Wire NiTi (M-Wire), and Vortex Blue NiTi (Blue). Each axis was independently scaled to be between 0 and 1 by normalizing data on the basis of its biggest value, except for exibility being normalized on the basis of the reciprocal of bending torques.
1. Al-Omari MA, Dummer PM, Newcombe RG, Doller R. Comparison of six les to prepare simulated root canals. Int Endod J 1992;25:6781. 2. Nagy CD, Bartha K, Bernath M, et al. The effect of root canal morphology on canal shape following instrumentation using different techniques. Int Endod J 1997;30: 13340. 3. Peters OA, Peters CI, Sch onenberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: assessment of torque and force in relation to canal anatomy. Int Endod J 2003;36:939.

400

Gao et al.

JOE Volume 38, Number 3, March 2012

Basic ResearchTechnology
4. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30:55967. 5. Glosson CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, et al. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 1995;21:14651. 6. Esposito PT, Cunningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with nickeltitanium and stainless steel instruments. J Endod 1995;21:1736. 7. Park H. A comparison of greater taper les, ProFiles, and stainless steel les to shape curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91:7158. 8. Sonntag D, Guntermann A, Kim SK, et al. Root canal shaping with manual stainless steel les and rotary Ni-Ti les performed by students. Int Endod J 2003;36:24655. 9. Liu SB, Fan B, Cheung GSP, et al. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability of rotary ProTaper compared with rotary GT and manual K-Flexole. Am J Dent 2006;19: 3538. 10. Cheung GSP, Liu CS. A retrospective study of endodontic treatment outcome between nickel-titanium rotary and stainless steel hand ling techniques. J Endod 2009;35: 93843. 11. Buehler WJ, Gilfrich JW, Wiley RC. A summary of effects of low-temperature phase changes on the mechanical properties of alloys near composition TiNi. J Appl Phys 1963;34:14757. 12. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal les. J Endod 1988;14:34651. 13. Grifths IT, Bryant ST, Dummer PMH. Canal shapes produced sequentially during instrumentation with Quantec LX rotary nickel-titanium instruments: a study in simulated canals. Int Endod J 2000;33:34654. 14. Bergmans L, Van Cleyenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Am J Dent 2001;14:32433. 15. Pasqualini D, Scotti N, Tamagnone L, et al. Hand-operated and rotary ProTaper instruments: a comparison of working time and number of rotations in simulated root canals. J Endod 2008;34:3147. 16. Thompson SA. An overview of nickel-titanium alloys used in dentistry. Int Endod J 2000;33:297310. 17. Kuhn G, Tavernier B, Jordan L. Inuence of structure on nickel-titanium endodontic instruments failure. J Endod 2001;27:51620. 18. Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Iijima M, et al. Metallurgical characterization of a new nickel-titanium wire for rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod 2009;35:158993. 19. Johnson E, Lloyd A, Kuttler S, et al. Comparison between a novel nickel titanium alloy and 508 nitinol on the cyclic fatigue life of ProFile 25/.04 rotary instruments. J Endod 2008;34:14069. 20. Gambarini G, Grande NM, Plotino G, et al. Fatigue resistance of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium instruments produced by new manufacturing methods. J Endod 2008;34:10035. 21. Larsen CM, Watanabe I, Glickman G, He J. Cyclic fatigue analysis of a new generation of nickel titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2009;35:4013. 22. Kim HC, Yum J, Hur B, Cheung GSP. Cyclic fatigue and fracture characteristics of ground and twisted nickel-titanium rotary les. J Endod 2010;36:14752. 23. Al-Hadlaq SMS, AlJarbou FA, AlThumairy RI. Evaluation of cyclic exural fatigue of M-Wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2010;36:3057. 24. da Cunha Peixoto IF, Pereira  ESJ, da Silva JG, et al. Flexural fatigue and torsional resistance of ProFile GT and ProFile GT series X instruments. J Endod 2010;36: 7414. 25. Gao Y, Shotton V, Wilkinson K, et al. Effects of raw material and rotational speed on the cyclic fatigue of ProFile Vortex rotary instruments. J Endod 2010;36:12059. 26. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 1997;23:7785. 27. ASTM E3-11. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM): standard guide for preparation of metallographic specimens. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2007. 28. Seto BG, Nicholls JI, Harrington GW. Torsional properties of twisted and machined endodontic les. J Endod 1990;8:35560. 29. Lee DH, Park JB, Saxena A, Serene TP. Enhanced surface hardness by boron implantation in Nitinol alloy. J Endod 1996;22:436. 30. Rapisarda E, Bonaccorso A, Tripi TR, et al. The effects of surface treatments of nickel-titanium les on wear and cutting efciency. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:3638. 31. Sch afer E. Effect of physical vapor deposition on cutting efciency of nickel-titanium les. J Endod 2002;12:8002. 32. Tripi TR, Bonaccorso A, Rapisarda E, et al. Depositions of nitrogen on NiTi instruments. J Endod 2002;28:497500. 33. Li UM, Iijima M, Endo K, et al. Application of plasma immersion ion implantation for surface modication of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Dent Mater J 2007;26: 46773. 34. Wolle CF, Vasconcellos MA, Hinrichs R, et al. The effect of argon and nitrogen ion implantation on nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2009;35:155862. 35. Available at: http://www.mindat.org/min-213.html. Accessed October 8, 2011. 36. Available at: http://www.mindat.org/min-3486.html. Accessed October 8, 2011. 37. Lewinstein I, Grajower R. Root dentin hardness of endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 1981;7:4212. 38. Kuhn G, Jordan L. Fatigue and mechanical properties of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 2002;28:71620.

JOE Volume 38, Number 3, March 2012

Impact of Raw Materials on Endodontic Rotary Instruments

401