ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Stress-Controlled Torsional Fatigue Assessment of Selected Contemporary Endodontic Instruments.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare stress-controlled torsional fatigue resistance of TruNatomy (TN), ProTaper Next (PTN), and ProTaper Ultimate (PTUL) instruments of comparable sizes at both room and body temperature. MATERIALS AND
methodsTorsional strength and related twist angles were determined at both temperatures in a torque testing fixture. Stress-controlled torsional fatigue resistance (TFR) was determined by cycling instruments in a custom fixture to pre-set twist angles corresponding to 90% torsional strength until fracture. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests with the significance level set at 0.05.
resultsOverall, mean (± standard deviation) TFR ranged from 192 (± 66) to 841 (± 201) cycles; PTUL had the highest TFR and TN the lowest; the differences among the three instruments were statistically significant. At 37 °C compared to room temperature, PTUL had a similar TFR, while PTN had a higher and TN a lower one. Applying customized stress-controlled conditions resulted in differences in TFR among the 3 instrument types. Different environmental temperatures had varying effects on the tested instruments manufactured from differently heat-treated nickel-titanium (NiTi) alloy.
conclusionsUnderstanding TFR is relevant for clinical use of NiTi instruments for continuous rotation and reciprocation, specifically for motor settings. Within the limitations and specific testing parameters of this study, stress-controlled TFR varied among the three tested instruments. Different environmental temperatures had varying effects on the tested instruments manufactured from differently heat-treated nickel-titanium (NiTi) alloy. Variations in instrument design and the NiTi alloy type used may account for different torsional fatigue performance and suggest specific clinical usage parameters. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: During canal preparation, instruments are stressed under cyclic load, a condition which is replicated in this experiment. The data is relevant for motor presets for continuous rotation and reciprocating motion as well as handling of contemporary heat-treated Nickel-titanium 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.