Cyclic fatigue resistance, torsional resistance, and metallurgical characteristics of V taper 2 and V taper 2H rotary NiTi files
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance, torsional resistance, and metallurgical characteristics of conventional NiTi wire (V taper 2, V2) and CM wire (V taper 2H, V2H)-based files. Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of V2 and V2H were investigated by measuring the number of cycles to fracture, maximum torque at fracture, and maximum angle at fracture. The typical patterns of fatigue and torsional fractures were investigated using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The metallurgical characteristics were investigated by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) from -100 °C to 100 °C. The austenite finishing temperature (Af) of each instrument was also measured. The microstructures of the instruments were investigated by a transmission electron microscope (TEM) along with selected area diffraction pattern analysis. The results were statistically analyzed by Mann-Whitney U-test (p = 0.05). V2H showed significantly higher cyclic fatigue resistance and torsional resistance than V2. SEM images of the fractured surfaces showed typical patterns of fatigue and torsional fracture. The DSC analysis of V2 showed one small peak in both the heating and cooling curves. The Af of V2 was -0.32 °C. V2H showed two remarkable peaks in the heating curve and one remarkable peak in the cooling curve. The Af of V2H was 33.25 °C. The TEM analysis showed that both V2 and V2H are mainly composed of austenite. In conclusion, V2H showed higher cyclic fatigue resistance and torsional resistance than V2. The superior properties of V2H could be attributed to the annealing effect and possibly the martensite phase. SCANNING 38:564-570, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".