The geometric design of an endodontic file includes cross-sectional shape, taper, and pitch. NiTi endodontic files of OneCurve (MicroMega) are made of two variations of cross-sectional shape, that is, double-s shaped and triple helix. Various kinds of modifications were made to increase the resistance of the NiTi endodontic files from fracture. Cyclic fatigue is the most common factor that causes a fracture of the endodontic file. Objective: The purpose of this study was to obtain a NiTi endodontic file design that has the best cyclic resistance value based on its taper size and number of pitch. Methods: This study used OneCurve endodontic file size 25.06, then scanned with MicroCT Scan and modified the geometric design. The number of file modifications was nine. Taper size modifications were 4%, 6%, and 8%; the number of pitch modifications was reduced by three, fixed, and added by three. Cyclic fatigue measurement simulations were carried out using the finite element method three times each. The result data were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA test and then continued with LSD. Results: The results of the statistical test showed that there was an effect of the size of the taper on the cyclic fatigue values. Endodontic files with a size of a taper 4% had the lowest cyclic fatigue value. Conclusion: The conclusion of this research was that the taper size affects the value of cyclic fatigue in continuous endodontic files made of nickel-titanium with variable cross sections. The number of pitch did not show a significant effect on the cyclic value.


1. Chandra BS, Gopik rish na V. Grossman’s endodontic practice. 13th ed. New Delhi: Wolters Kluwer Ltd; 2014. p. 314.

2. Hargreaves KM, Berman LH. Cohen’s pathways of the pulp. 11th ed. Missouri: Elsivier; 2016.

3. Garg N, Garg A. Textbook of endodontics. 4th Ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher; 2019. pp. 146-9.

4. Camilleri J. Endodontic materials in clinical practice. New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell; 2021. p. 84.

5. Kim JW, Park SR, Park SH, Cho KM. Shaping characteristics of two different motions nickel titanium file: A preliminary comparative study of surface profile and dentin chip. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci. 2014; 30(2):121-30.

6. Del Fabbro M, Afrashtehfar KI, Corbella S, El- Kabbaney A, Perondi I, Taschieri S. In vivo and in vitro effectiveness of rotary nickel-titanium vs manual stainless steel instruments for root canal therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2018; 18(1):59-69.

7. Shen Y, Zhou HM, Zheng YF, Peng B, Haapasalo M. Current challenges and concepts of the thermomechanical treatment of nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2013; 39(2):163-72.

8. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod. 2000; 26(3):161-5.

9. Ha JH, Cheung GS, Versluis A, Lee CJ, Kwak SW, Kim HC. ‘Screw-in’ tendency of rotary nickeltitanium files due to design geometry. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(7):666-72.

10. Hadriyanto W, Wardani L, Nugrohowati C, Alhasyimi A, Sriwijaya R, Rinastiti M, Siswomihardjo W. Influence of nickel-titanium rotary systems with varying cross-sectional, pitch, and rotational speed on deflection and cyclic fatigue: a finite element analysis study. Biomed Sci Eng. 2021; 41:05005.

11. Roda-Casanova V, Pérez-González A, Zubizarreta- Macho Á, Faus-Matoses V. Fatigue analysis of NiTi rotary endodontic files through finite element simulation: Effect of root canal geometry on fatigue life. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(23):5692.

12. He R, Ni J. Design improvement and failure reduction of endodontic files through finite element analysis: Application to V-Taper file designs. J Endod. 2010; 36(9):1552-7.

13. Bueno CRE, Cury MTS, Vasques AMV, Sivieri- Araújo G, Jacinto RC, Gomes-Filho JE, Cintra LTA, Dezan-Júnior E. Cyclic fatigue resistance of novel Genius and Edgefile nickel-titanium reciprocating instruments. Braz Oral Res. 2019; 33:e028.

14. Kim HC, Kwak SW, Cheung GS, Ko DH, Chung SM, Lee W. Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel-titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: Reciproc versus WaveOne. J Endod. 2012; 38(4):541-4.

15. Kaphre R, Sarve J, Makade C. Comparative study of endodontic various cross sections with varying threads. Adv Sci Eng Med. 2014; 6(1):75-80.

16. Plotino G, Grande NM, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Cyclic fatigue of Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. Int Endod J. 2012; 45(7):614-8.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.