Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the cyclic fatigue strength of different reciprocating rotary systems depending on the movement used. Methods: Four study groups were analyzed (n = 30): (1) Reciproc®, (2) Reciproc Blue®, (3) Wave One Gold® and (4) Procodile®. Each group was divided into three subgroups according to the motion used: (A) Reflex Dynamic® (n = 10), (B) ReFlex Smart® (n = 10) and (C) conventional reciprocating motion (n = 10). They were used in a dynamic cyclic fatigue prototype until their fracture, and the time was measured in seconds. The results obtained were analyzed with the ANOVA method, and for two-to-two comparisons, the Tukey method and Weibull statistics were used. Results: Procodile ReFlex Smart had the longest time to failure, and statistically significant differences were found between Procodile ReFlex Smart and the other files and motions (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Smart motions increase cyclic fatigue strength. ReFlex Smart® motion increases the cyclic fatigue strength of reciprocating rotary systems, and Procodile® ReFlex Smart was the most resistant system file.
Keywords: Procodile; cyclic fatigue; endodontics; reciprocating movement; reflex smart dynamic; smart motion.