ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Dynamic cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc® Blue, One Reci®, R-Motion®, and two Replica-Like endodontic files after autoclave sterilisation and/or immersion in sodium hypochlorite: A comparative
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the cyclic fatigue resistance (CFR) of Reciproc® Blue (RB), One Reci® (OR), R-Motion® (RM), Roll Wave Gold (RW) and RCS Blue T (RCS B-T) instruments. Material and Methods: 525 files (105 RB (25/0.08), 105 OR (25/0.06), 105 RM (25/0.06), 105 Wave Roll (25/0.07) and 105 RCS Blue T (25/0.06) were assigned into 7 groups (n =15) for each brand. Group 0: Instruments were not exposed to NaOCl or sterilization. Groups 1 and 4: instruments were exposed to 5% NaOCl 1 and 3 times, respectively. Groups 2 and 5: instruments were sterilized 1 and 3 times, respectively. Groups 3 and 6: Instruments were exposed to both, NaOCl and sterilization 1 and 3 times, respectively. Subsequently, files underwent a dynamic CFR test. The chemical composition of the files' surfaces from Group 0 was determined using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Cyclic fatigue resistance time was statistically analysed using 1-way ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Post hoc multiple range analysis applying Tukey's test and the Games-Howell test was conducted to assess significant differences. Results: Greater CFR values were observed in the RB instruments, followed by the RM, OR, RW and RCS B-T files, respectively ( Conclusions: The RB displayed the best CFR values. The RB, RM and OR instruments were more vulnerable to the repeated cycles of NaOCl immersion combined with autoclave sterilisation. The high density of microstructural defects on the surface of RW and RCS B-T instruments, caused by a lack of quality control, makes their biomechanical behaviour unpredictable.
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.