Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Research Article| Volume 111, ISSUE 1, P56-63, January 2014

Performance of single-use and multiuse diamond rotary cutting instruments with turbine and electric handpieces

Published:November 18, 2013DOI:

      Statement of problem

      As single-use rotary cutting instruments and electric handpieces become more available, the performance of these instruments with electric as compared to turbine handpieces requires evaluation. In addition, if rotary cutting instruments marketed as single-use instruments are used for multiple patients, the effects on their performance of cleaning, sterilization, and repeated use are of interest to the clinician.


      The purpose of the study was to evaluate how the cleaning, autoclaving, and repeated use of single-use and multiuse rotary cutting instruments, with either a turbine or electric handpiece, affected their performance.

      Material and methods

      The effects on cutting performance of 2 handpieces (turbine and electric), 2 cleaning and sterilization conditions (cleaned and autoclaved versus noncleaned and nonautoclaved), and 6 different diamond rotary cutting instruments (4 single-use and 2 multiuse) during simulated tooth preparations were evaluated by using a 24-treatment condition full-factorial experimental design. A computer-controlled dedicated testing apparatus was used to simulate the cutting procedures, and machinable glass ceramic blocks were used as the cutting substrate for tangential cuts. In addition, for each treatment condition, 8 consecutive cuts, for a total of 192 cuts, were measured to assess the durability of the rotary cutting instruments. A linear mixed model was used to study the effect of instrument type, handpiece, cleaning, and sterilization, as well as the status and number of cuts on the outcome variables. The Tukey honestly significant difference test was used for the post hoc pairwise comparisons (α=.05).


      Performance, as measured by the rate of advancement, decreased with the repeated use of rotary cutting instruments (P<.001), while cleaning and sterilization procedures improved the average performance of the 8 cuts (P=.002). The electric handpiece showed a greater load than the turbine (P<.001) and a lower rate/load metric, but no differences in the rate of advancement. Significant differences were also detected among the different rotary cutting instruments tested with the Two Striper, which showed the highest cumulative performance of all groups.


      The repeated use of both single-use and multiuse rotary cutting instruments decreased cutting performance. The use of a cleaning and sterilization procedure between cuts improved the average cutting performance. During a tangential cutting process, although the ease of advancement (rate/load) was greater for the turbine, the electric handpiece did not produce a statistically different cutting rate.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Ercoli C.
        • Rotella M.
        • Funkenbusch P.D.
        • Russell S.
        • Feng C.
        In vitro comparison of the cutting efficiency and temperature production of 10 different rotary cutting instruments. Part I: turbine.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101: 248-261
        • Siegel S.C.
        • Von Fraunhofer J.A.
        Dental cutting: the historical development of diamond burs.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129: 740-745
        • Siegel S.C.
        • von Fraunhofer J.A.
        Assessing the cutting efficiency of dental diamond burs.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 1996; 127: 763-772
        • Naylor W.P.
        • Beatty M.W.
        Materials and techniques in fixed prosthodontics.
        Dent Clin North Am. 1992; 36: 665-692
        • Pilcher E.S.
        • Tietge J.D.
        • Draughn R.A.
        Comparison of cutting rates among single-patient-use and multiple-patient-use diamond burs.
        J Prosthodont. 2000; 9: 66-70
        • Taylor D.F.
        • Perkins R.R.
        • Kumpula J.W.
        Characteristics of some air-turbine handpieces.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 1962; 64: 794-805
        • Elias K.
        • Amis A.A.
        • Setchell D.J.
        The magnitude of cutting forces at high speed.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89: 286-291
        • Eikenberg S.L.
        Comparison of the cutting efficiencies of electric motor and air turbine dental handpieces.
        Gen Dent. 2001; 49: 199-204
        • Kenyon B.J.
        • Van Zyl I.
        • Louie K.G.
        Comparison of cavity preparation quality using an electric motor handpiece and an air turbine dental handpiece.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136: 1101-1105
        • Christensen G.J.
        Are electric handpieces an improvement?.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2002; 133: 1433-1434
        • Watson T.F.
        • Flanagan D.
        • Stone D.G.
        High and low torque handpieces: cutting dynamics, enamel cracking and tooth temperature.
        Br Dent J. 2000; 188: 680-686
        • Ercoli C.
        • Rotella M.
        • Funkenbusch P.D.
        • Russell S.
        • Feng C.
        In vitro comparison of the cutting efficiency and temperature production of ten different rotary cutting instruments. Part II: electric handpiece and comparison with turbine.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101: 319-331
        • Chung E.M.
        • Sung E.C.
        • Wu B.
        • Caputo A.A.
        Comparing cutting efficiencies of diamond burs using a high-speed electric handpiece.
        Gen Dent. 2006; 54: 254-257
        • Harkness N.
        • Davies E.H.
        The cleaning of dental diamond burs.
        Br Dent J. 1983; 154: 42-45
        • Gureckis K.M.
        • Burgess J.O.
        • Schwartz R.S.
        Cutting effectiveness of diamond instruments subjected to cyclic sterilization methods.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 66: 721-726
        • Nelson S.
        • Ash M.
        Wheeler's dental anatomy, physiology, and occlusion.
        9th ed. Saunders Elsevier, New York2010: 18-19
        • Phadke M.S.
        Quality engineering using robust design.
        Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River1989: 44-47
        • Funkenbusch P.
        Practical guide to designed experiments; a unified modular approach.
        Marcel Dekker, New York2004: 60-61