Reciprocating Kinematics of X-Smart Plus, VDW Silver and, iRoot Endodontic Motors: A Comparison Between Real and Set Values

Abstract

This study assessed 3 endodontic motors, X-Smart Plus (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), VDW.Silver Reciproc (VDW GmbH, München, Germany) and, iRoot (Bassi Endodontics, Belo Horizonte, Brazil) in 2 different reciprocating settings. The movements evaluated were 170° in counter-clockwise (CCW) and 50° in clockwise (CW) at 350 RPM, and 150° CCW and 30° CW at 300 RPM. For the X-Smart Plus and VDW Silver the settings used were the ones in the motor library. For the iRoot, the motor was adjusted to the angles of the study. A customized optic target was attached to the contra-angle of the motor and the movements were recorded with a high-resolution camera (K2 DistaMaxTM Long-Distance Microscope System, Infinity Photo-Optical Company, Colorado, EUA) at 2,400 frames per second (FPS). The images were analyzed with the Vision Research software (Inc. Headquarters, Wayne, New Jersey, EUA). The following kinematic parameters were assessed: CCW angle, CW angle, speed (RPM) at both directions, and, standstill time at each change of directions. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Kruskal-Wallis (method of Dunn) were used at a significant level of 5%. There was no statistically significant difference among the motors at the 150°/30° setting (P > .05); the iRoot was the least reliable at the 170°/50° setting for CCW angle, speed, and net angle parameters (P < 0.05). The standstill time of all motors in both directions was identical. None of the motors were able to reproduce faithfully the set movements. The iRoot motor presented a higher discrepancy when compared to X-Smart and VDW Silver.

Influence of endodontic motors on the behaviour of root canal shaping instruments: an in vitro comparative study

“…At equivalent engine parameters, our results show very different penetration and withdrawal force values. In accordance with literature, this observation confirms that the declared manufacturers’ values are different from the really obtained ones [ 71 – 74 ].…”

“…In the same way, Irmak and Orhan (2017) showed that the actual kinematics of reciprocating endodontic motors differ from the manufacturers’ set values [ 73 ]. Braambati et al studied the CCW angle, CW angle, speed at both directions, and standstill time at each change of directions and confirmed that none of the motors were able to reproduce faithfully the set movements [ 71 ]. Regarding the continuous rotation motion, Monteiro-Netto et al studied the rotational speed parameters of three endodontic motors.…”

Influence of Endodontic Motors on the Behaviour of Root Canal Shaping Instruments: An in Vitro Comparative Study

“…73 Braambati et al (2022) studied the CCW angle, CW angle, speed at both directions, and standstill time at each change of directions and con rmed that none of the motors were able to reproduce faithfully the set movements. 71 Regarding the continuous rotation motion, Monteiro-Netto et al…”

“…In accordance with literature, this observation con rms that the declared manufacturers' values are different from the really obtained ones. [71][72][73][74] The Jeni Motor is the most advanced tested motor. Its reciprocity angles are set by the combination of rotation speed and duration in milliseconds in clockwise/counter-clockwise directions.…”

“…Today, all endodontic manufacturers propose endodontic motors in addition to their range of instruments. However, the scienti c literature has not extensively investigated endodontic motors and the studies generally highlight the non-reproducibility between kinematics settings and manufacturers' declared values [70][71][72][73][74] , torque analysis 68,75-78 or integrated apex locator. [79][80][81][82][83][84] To our knowledge, no study has been properly carried out on the impact of the endodontic motor on root canal shaping.…”