Evaluation of Cyclic Fatigue and Bending Resistance of Coronal Preflaring NiTi File Manufactured with Different Heat Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coronal preflaring NiTi files should possess proper hardness, resistance to fracture and flexibility. This study compared the bending resistance and cyclic fatigue resistance of three orifice preflaring NiTi files. HyFlex EDM Orifice opener (#25/12), HyFlex CM (#25/08) and One Flare (#25/09) were tested (n = 46/instrument). Bending resistance was assessed with the stress when perpendicular displacement was applied to a 3 mm point from the file tip, and was performed at either room temperature (RT, n = 10) or body temperature (BT, n = 10). Cyclic fatigue resistance was tested with an artificial ceramic root canal at RT (n = 10) and BT (n = 10), and the number of cycles to failure (NCF) was obtained. The bending resistance and the NCF results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses were performed (n = 3, respectively). HyFlex EDM exhibited the highest bending resistance, followed by One Flare and HyFlex CM (p < 0.05), irrespective of the tested temperature. At RT, HyFlex CM demonstrated the highest NCF (p = 0.001), while HyFlex EDM had the highest NCF at BT (p < 0.001). The tested NiTi files were composed of austenite and martensite according to the DSC and XRD results. HyFlex EDM had the highest bending resistance and NCF measured 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".