Background: The aim of this study was to compare the influence of two novel reciprocating movements on the cyclic fatigue resistance of endodontic reciprocating files.
Methods: 30 Procodile® (Komet Medical, Lemgo, Germany) files were selected in this study and distributed according to the following study groups depending on the movements to be performed: ReFlex Dynamic (n = 10), ReFlex Smart (n = 10) and Reciproc (n = 10) reciprocating movement. These files were fixed to a specific dynamic cyclic fatigue device designed and manufactured by 3D impression to simulate the pecking motion performed by the operator. The time to failure and the number of cycles of in-and-out of the endodontic files was registered. The results were analyzed by ANOVA and Weibull statistics.
Results: Statistically significant differences were found when the number of cycles of in-and-out movement and the time to failure of ReFlex Dynamic and Reciproc reciprocating movement (p < 0.001) and between ReFlex Smart and Reciproc reciprocating movement (p < 0.001) were compared in pairs. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between time to failure and number of cycles of in-and-out movement of ReFlex Dynamic and ReFlex Smart reciprocating movement (p = 0.253).
Conclusions: The ReFlex Smart reciprocating movement increased the cyclic fatigue resistance of endodontic reciprocating files compared with traditional reciprocating movement.
Keywords: Cyclic fatigue; Endodontics; Nitinol; Reciprocating movement.