Evaluation of the Flexibility, Cyclic Fatigue, and Torsional Resistance of Rotary Endodontic Files Made of Different Nickel-Titanium Alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study compared the mechanical properties of Profile Vortex, Profile Vortex Blue, and Race rotary files. Materials and Methods:The files were subjected to flexibility, rotating-bending (static and dynamic), and torsional resistance tests.Results: Analysis of the data obtained was performed using ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests.Significant difference in flexibility was observed between Profile Vortex Blue and the two other files tested (Profile Vortex M Wire and Race) (P<0.05);however, Profile Vortex M Wire and Race did not significantly differ from each other (P>0.05).In the rotatingbending tests (static and dynamic), Profile Vortex Blue presented significantly greater resistance than Profile Vortex M Wire and Race (P<0.05).As for the torsional resistance test, Profile Vortex M Wire had significantly greater resistance (degrees and turns) than the other two instruments tested (P<0.05).No difference in torsional resistance was observed between Profile Vortex Blue and Race files (P>0.05).Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in maximum torque among the instruments tested, as follows (in decreasing order): Profile Vortex Blue > Profile Vortex M Wire > Race (P<0.05).Conclusion: Profile Vortex Blue files were more flexible, more resistant to rotating-bending fatigue, and to torsional failure when compared to Profile Vortex (made of M-Wire NiTi) and Race files (made of conventional NiTi).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".