Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 1433–1437 | Cite as

Cyclic fatigue resistance of XP-endo Shaper compared with different nickel-titanium alloy instruments

  • Amr Elnaghy
  • Shaymaa Elsaka
Original Article



The aims of this study were to assess and compare the resistance to cyclic fatigue of XP-endo Shaper (XPS; FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) instruments with TRUShape (TRS; Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK, USA), HyFlex CM (HCM; Coltene, Cuyahoga Falls, OH, USA), Vortex Blue (VB; Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties), and iRace (iR; FKG Dentaire) nickel-titanium rotary instruments at body temperature.

Materials and methods

Size 30, 0.01 taper of XPS, size 30, 0.04 taper of HCM, VB, iR, and size 30, 0.06 taper of TRS instruments were immersed in saline at 37 ± 1 °C during cyclic fatigue testing. The instruments were tested with 60° angle of curvature and a 3-mm radius of curvature. The number of cycles to failure (NCF) was calculated and the length of the fractured segment was measured. Fractographic examination of the fractured surface was performed using a scanning electron microscope. The data were analyzed statistically using Kruskal–Wallis H test and Mann–Whitney U tests. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.


XPS had a significantly greater NCF compared with the other instruments (P < 0.001). The topographic appearance of the fracture surfaces of tested instruments revealed ductile fracture of cyclic fatigue failure.


XPS instruments exhibited greater cyclic fatigue resistance compared with the other tested instruments.

Clinical relevance

XP-endo Shaper instruments could be used more safely in curved canals due to their higher fatigue resistance.


Body temperature Cyclic fatigue XP-endo Shaper Nickel-titanium rotary instruments 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH (2000) Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod 26:161–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gambarini G, Gergi R, Naaman A, Osta N, Al Sudani D (2012) Cyclic fatigue analysis of twisted file rotary NiTi instruments used in reciprocating motion. Int Endod J 45:802–806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gambarini G, Grande NM, Plotino G, Somma F, Garala M, De Luca M, Testarelli L (2008) Fatigue resistance of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium instruments produced by new manufacturing methods. J Endod 34:1003–1005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gutmann JL, Gao Y (2012) Alteration in the inherent metallic and surface properties of nickel-titanium root canal instruments to enhance performance, durability and safety: a focused review. Int Endod J 45:113–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE (2014) Assessment of the mechanical properties of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files. J Endod 40:1830–1834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hieawy A, Haapasalo M, Zhou H, Wang ZJ, Shen Y (2015) Phase transformation behavior and resistance to bending and cyclic fatigue of ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Universal instruments. J Endod 41:1134–1138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gao Y, Gutmann JL, Wilkinson K, Maxwell R, Ammon D (2012) Evaluation of the impact of raw materials on the fatigue and mechanical properties of ProFile Vortex rotary instruments. J Endod 38:398–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shen Y, Coil JM, Zhou HM, Tam E, Zheng YF, Haapasalo M (2012) ProFile Vortex instruments after clinical use: a metallurgical properties study. J Endod 38:1613–1617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shen Y, Hieawy A, Huang X, Wang ZJ, Maezono H, Haapasalo M (2016) Fatigue resistance of a 3-dimensional conforming nickel-titanium rotary instrument in double curvatures. J Endod 42:961–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties (2015) TRUShape 3D confirming files brochure. Available at:
  11. 11.
    Kaval ME, Capar ID, Ertas H, Sen BH (2017) Comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of four different nickel-titanium rotary files with different cross-sectional designs and alloy properties. Clin Oral Investig 21:1527–1530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peters OA, Arias A, Paque F (2015) A micro-computed tomographic assessment of root canal preparation with a novel instrument, TRUShape, in mesial roots of mandibular molars. J Endod 41:1545–1550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    FKG Dentaire (2016) The XP-endo shaper brochure. Available at:
  14. 14.
    Cheung GS, Darvell BW (2007) Fatigue testing of a NiTi rotary instrument. Part 1: strain-life relationship. Int Endod J 40:612–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Vasconcelos RA, Murphy S, Carvalho CA, Govindjee RG, Govindjee S, Peters OA (2016) Evidence for reduced fatigue resistance of contemporary rotary instruments exposed to body temperature. J Endod 42:782–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE (2016) Effect of sodium hypochlorite and saline on cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne Gold and Reciproc reciprocating instruments. Int Endod J.
  17. 17.
    Pedullà E, Grande NM, Plotino G, Gambarini G, Rapisarda E (2013) Influence of continuous or reciprocating motion on cyclic fatigue resistance of 4 different nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 39:258–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elnaghy AM (2014) Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files. Int Endod J 47:1034–1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE (2015) Torsion and bending properties of OneShape and WaveOne instruments. J Endod 41:544–547CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Topçuoğlu HS, Pala K, Akti A, Düzgün S, Topçuoğlu G (2016) Cyclic fatigue resistance of D-RaCe, ProTaper, and Mtwo nickel-titanium retreatment instruments after immersion in sodium hypochlorite. Clin Oral Investig 20:1175–1179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jamleh A, Yahata Y, Ebihara A, Atmeh AR, Bakhsh T, Suda H (2016) Performance of NiTi endodontic instrument under different temperatures. Odontology 104:324–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tripi TR, Bonaccorso A, Condorelli GG (2006) Cyclic fatigue of different nickel-titanium endodontic rotary instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 102:e106–e114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tsujimoto M, Irifune Y, Tsujimoto Y, Yamada S, Watanabe I, Hayashi Y (2014) Comparison of conventional and new-generation nickel-titanium files in regard to their physical properties. J Endod 40:1824–1829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miyai K, Ebihara A, Hayashi Y, Doi H, Suda H, Yoneyama T (2006) Influence of phase transformation on the torsional and bending properties of nickel-titanium rotary endodontic instruments. Int Endod J 39:119–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shen Y, Zhou HM, Zheng YF, Peng B, Haapasalo M (2013) Current challenges and concepts of the thermomechanical treatment of nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod 39:163–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plotino G, Grande NM, Cotti E, Testarelli L, Gambarini G (2014) Blue treatment enhances cyclic fatigue resistance of Vortex nickel-titanium rotary files. J Endod 40:1451–1453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nguyen HH, Fong H, Paranjpe A, Flake NM, Johnson JD, Peters OA (2014) Evaluation of the resistance to cyclic fatigue among ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal, and Vortex Blue rotary instruments. J Endod 40:1190–1193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peters OA, Gluskin AK, Weiss RA, Han JT (2012) An in vitro assessment of the physical properties of novel Hyflex nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J 45:1027–1034CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Plotino G, Testarelli L, Al-Sudani D, Pongione G, Grande NM, Gambarini G (2014) Fatigue resistance of rotary instruments manufactured using different nickel-titanium alloys: a comparative study. Odontology 102:31–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Santoro M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ (2001) Pseudoelasticity and thermoelasticity of nickel-titanium alloys: a clinically oriented review. Part I: temperature transitional ranges. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 119:587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE (2017) Laboratory comparison of the mechanical properties of TRUShape with several nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J 50:805–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Topçuoğlu HS, Topçuoğlu G, Akti A, Düzgün S (2016) In vitro comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next, HyFlex CM, OneShape, and ProTaper Universal instruments in a canal with a double curvature. J Endod 42:969–971CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seago ST, Bergeron BE, Kirkpatrick TC, Roberts MD, Roberts HW, Himel VT, Sabey KA (2015) Effect of repeated simulated clinical use and sterilization on the cutting efficiency and flexibility of Hyflex CM nickel-titanium rotary files. J Endod 41:725–728CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shen Y, Zhou HM, Zheng YF, Campbell L, Peng B, Haapasalo M (2011) Metallurgical characterization of controlled memory wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 37:1566–1571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL Jr (1997) Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 23:77–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Higuera O, Plotino G, Tocci L, Carrillo G, Gambarini G, Jaramillo DE (2015) Cyclic fatigue resistance of 3 different nickel-titanium reciprocating instruments in artificial canals. J Endod 41:913–915CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Dental Biomaterials, Faculty of DentistryMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt

Personalised recommendations