Abstract
Introduction: The goal of this study was to evaluate the bending and fracture resistance of TRUShape and ProTaper Next files in static and dynamic modes. Method: A universal testing machine evaluated the bending resistance of ten randomly chosen files from each system. These files were chosen for the present investigation because they were all 0.25-inch in diameter. Custom-built equipment was used to conduct both static and dynamic cycle fatigue testing. An artificial canal was cut with a 60-degree curve and a 6mm diameter in a stainless-steel block. Scanning electron microscopy was utilized to detect the fracture mechanism after the broken segments' lengths had been determined by other means. New TRUShape and ProTaper Next files were subjected to X-ray energy-dispersive spectrometer (EDS) examination to assess their average nickel and titanium contents. The statistical analysis made use of an independent t-test. Result: TRUShape files displayed substantially less bending resistance than ProTaper Next files. Moreover, the TRUShape demonstrated significantly better cycle fatigue resistance than the ProTaper Next in both static and dynamic modes. The EDS analysis demonstrated that the alloy composition of both files was highly comparable. Conclusion: When evaluated in static and dynamic modes, TRUShape files outperformed ProTaper Next in cycle fatigue resistance. ProTaper Next files displayed much less flexibility than TRUShape files for dynamic cycle fatigue testing.