Bending resistance and cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne Gold, Reciproc Blue, and HyFlex EDM instruments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several single-file systems manufactured using different heat treatment and operated by different kinematics have been released. This study compared the bending resistance and cyclic fatigue resistance of three NiTi files, and examined their phase-transformation behavior. WaveOne Gold Primary (WOG), Reciproc Blue R25 (RPB), and HyFlex EDM OneFile (HDM) were tested (N = 40/instrument). A vertical load was applied to a point 3 mm from the tip, and the stress was measured until a displacement of 3 mm. Tests were conducted at either room temperature (RT: 22 °C) or body temperature (BT: 37 °C) (n = 10). Cyclic fatigue resistance tests were performed in an artificial canal, which had a curvature angle of 40° and a 5-mm radius. Tests were conducted at either RT or BT (n = 10). Instruments were operated according to the manufacturers' instructions. Test results were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and the Mann–Whitney tests. Additional three instruments of each brand were subjected to differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). At RT the bending resistance of three files were not significantly different. However, at BT the bending resistance of RPB was highest, followed by WOG, and HDM (P < 0.05). At RT, RPB demonstrated the longest fracture time, followed by HDM, and WOG (P < 0.05). At BT, HDM had the longest fracture time, followed by RPB, and WOG (P < 0.05). The WOG, RPB consisted of austenite in a considerable proportion, whereas HDM was mainly martensite state at BT. HDM presented superior flexibility and cyclic fatigue resistance at BT.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it