Publication:
Comparison of Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of ProGlider and One G Glide Path Files

dc.authorscopusid57191441826
dc.authorscopusid56348812200
dc.authorscopusid22934205900
dc.contributor.authorUslu, G.
dc.contributor.authorOzyurek, T.
dc.contributor.authorInan, U.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T13:31:59Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T13:31:59Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Uslu] Gulşah, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Ozyurek] Taha, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Inan] Uǧur, Department of Endodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction The aim of this study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistances of nickel-titanium rotary glide path files, which are manufactured as single-file systems, under dynamic model. Methods Twenty ProGlider (16.02) and 20 One G (14.03) nickel-titanium glide path files were included in this study. Cyclic fatigue tests were performed with specifically manufactured dynamic cyclic testing device. The device has an artificially prepared canal with 60° curvature angle and 5-mm curvature radius. The canal inner diameter is 1.5 mm, and its curvature center is located at the coronal 5 mm from the apical. The files were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 20): group 1, ProGlider; group 2, One G. Time to fracture was recorded, and the number of cycles to failure for each instrument was obtained. Statistical analyses were performed by using independent samples t test. The statistically significant level was set at P < .05. Results The cyclic fatigue resistance of ProGlider files was found to be statistically significantly higher than that of the One G files (P < .05). Conclusions Within the limitations of the present study, it was concluded that the cyclic fatigue resistance of ProGlider, which is manufactured as single-file glide path system, is higher than that of the One G file. © 2016 American Association of Endodontistsen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.012
dc.identifier.endpage1558en_US
dc.identifier.issn0099-2399
dc.identifier.issn1878-3554
dc.identifier.issue10en_US
dc.identifier.pmid27567035
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84990233081
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage1555en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.012
dc.identifier.volume42en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000384781300024
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Inc. usjcs@elsevier.comen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Endodonticsen_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Endodonticsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectDynamic Cyclic Fatigue Testen_US
dc.subjectEndodonticsen_US
dc.subjectGlide Pathen_US
dc.subjectOne-Gen_US
dc.subjectProGlideren_US
dc.titleComparison of Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of ProGlider and One G Glide Path Filesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files