﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<ArticleSet>
  <Article>
    <Journal>
      <PublisherName>Tabriz University of Medical Sciences</PublisherName>
      <JournalTitle>Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects</JournalTitle>
      <Issn>2008-210X</Issn>
      <Volume>13</Volume>
      <Issue>1</Issue>
      <PubDate PubStatus="ppublish">
        <Year>2019</Year>
        <Month>04</Month>
        <DAY>24</DAY>
      </PubDate>
    </Journal>
    <ArticleTitle>Comparison of the cyclic fatigue resistance of ProGlider, PathGlider and One G path-finding instruments</ArticleTitle>
    <FirstPage>57</FirstPage>
    <LastPage>60</LastPage>
    <ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.15171/joddd.2019.009</ELocationID>
    <Language>EN</Language>
    <AuthorList>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Damla Özsu</FirstName>
        <LastName>Kırıcı</LastName>
        <Identifier Source="ORCID">https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8391-1034</Identifier>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Ertuğrul</FirstName>
        <LastName>Karataş</LastName>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Ahmet Demirhan</FirstName>
        <LastName>Uygun</LastName>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Ezgi</FirstName>
        <LastName>Doğanay Yıldız</LastName>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Kezban Meltem</FirstName>
        <LastName>Çolak</LastName>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Hakan</FirstName>
        <LastName>Arslan</LastName>
      </Author>
    </AuthorList>
    <PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
    <ArticleIdList>
      <ArticleId IdType="doi">10.15171/joddd.2019.009</ArticleId>
    </ArticleIdList>
    <History>
      <PubDate PubStatus="received">
        <Year>2018</Year>
        <Month>09</Month>
        <Day>07</Day>
      </PubDate>
      <PubDate PubStatus="accepted">
        <Year>2018</Year>
        <Month>12</Month>
        <Day>21</Day>
      </PubDate>
    </History>
    <Abstract>Background. The aim of the present study was to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of novel nickel titanium rotary pathfinding instruments.  Methods. Twenty instruments were selected for each file system. A simulated stainless steel root canal, with a 90° angle of curvature and a curvature radius of 3 mm, was used for cyclic fatigue test of the ProGlider (#16, progressive taper: 0.02‒ 0.085), PathGlider (#15, taper: .03), and One G (#14, taper: .03) instruments. Statistical analyses were performed with oneway ANOVA (P=0.05). Post hoc Tukey tests were used to determine any statistically significant differences between the groups.  Results. The ProGlider instruments exhibited significantly more cyclic fatigue resistance than both PathGlider and One G instruments (P&lt;0.001). One G instruments had significantly more resistance to fracture than PathGlider instruments (P&lt;0.05).  Conclusion. ProGlider instruments had better cyclic fatigue resistance than PathGlider and One G instruments.</Abstract>
    <ObjectList>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">Cyclic fatigue</Param>
      </Object>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">ProGlider</Param>
      </Object>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">PathGlider</Param>
      </Object>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">One G</Param>
      </Object>
    </ObjectList>
  </Article>
</ArticleSet>