ArticleInternational endodontic journal2025
Mechanical and Metallurgical In Vitro Evaluation of Electropolished Versus Non-Electropolished Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments.
Article in International endodontic journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the effect of electropolishing on the mechanical properties of One RECI and One Curve mini nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments by comparing electropolished and non-electropolished versions of each instrument type. METHODOLOGY: Electropolished and non-electropolished One RECI (reciprocating) and One Curve mini (rotary) NiTi instruments, all manufactured with identical geometry and heat treatment, were evaluated. Instrument design was analysed by light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy, while metallurgical characterisation was performed using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Mechanical performance was assessed through torsional resistance, bending and buckling load, surface microhardness, and cutting efficiency. Statistical comparisons were performed using the independent samples t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsDesign and metallurgical analyses confirmed that electropolished and non-electropolished instruments within each group were equivalent in terms of geometry, cross-sectional design, tip configuration, elemental composition, and phase transformation temperatures. Electropolishing significantly enhanced flexibility in both instrument types, as indicated by reduced bending loads and lower buckling resistance (p < 0.05). However, torsional strength was significantly reduced in the electropolished One RECI instruments, reflected by lower maximum torque and angle of rotation prior to fracture (p < 0.05). No significant torsional differences were observed in the One Curve mini group (p > 0.05). Surface microhardness and cutting efficiency remained unaffected by electropolishing in both systems (p > 0.05).
conclusionsElectropolishing improved the flexibility of both One RECI and One Curve mini NiTi instruments without compromising their surface microhardness or cutting efficiency. However, its impact on torsional resistance was system-dependent, resulting in reduced strength only in the reciprocating One RECI instruments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.