ArticleEuropean endodontic journal2025
Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of 'Replica-Like" and Original Reciprocating Instruments in Single and Double Curvatures.
Article in European endodontic journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the cyclic fatigue resistance of original and replica-like files: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
- The Hidden Dangers of Counterfeit and Replica-Like Endodontic Files: A Scoping Review of Current Evidence.Australian dental journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of conventional and heat-treated "replica-like" reciprocating instruments with their original counterparts under single and double curvatures and assess tip size discrepancies against manufacturer-reported values.
methodsEighteen instruments were used per group for the study. Two measurements at the instrument's tip were made with a digital calliper. Cyclic fatigue resistance was evaluated under single (60°, 5 mm radius) and double curvatures (60°, 5 mm radius each) in a 37°C water bath. Time to fracture (seconds) was recorded and analysed with appropriate statistical tests (p=0.05).
resultsThe tip sizes of all instruments were smaller than the value purported by the manufacturers (0.25 mm) and outside the range of values obtained, with significant differences for all groups (p<0.001). Time to fracture were as follows: Reciproc R25: single curvature: 171.5+-38.9, double curvature: 133.4+-47.4; Reverso Silver: single curvature: 169.0+-104.8, double curvature: 57.8+-20.0; Reciproc Blue R25 single curvature: 355.4+-86.4, double curvature: 140.5+-67.7; Reverso Blue: single curvature: 359.5+-102.8, double curvature: 142.9+-69.0. Reverso Silver presented with a significantly lower time to fracture overall when compared with the Blue instruments (p=0.002) and with all instruments in double curvatures (p<0.05). In single curvatures, blue files had longer times to fracture (p<0.05). When comparing single versus double curvatures, only Reciproc R25 had no significant differences regarding time to fracture (p=0.54).
conclusionThe tip sizes of the instrument tested were smaller than what is reported by the manufacturers. The cyclic fatigue resistance of the conventional 'replica-like' instrument (Reverso Silver) was significantly lower than the blue "heat-treated" comparators. Double curvature hastened fracture. (EEJ-2024-11-174).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.