ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of the cyclic fatigue resistance of four specialist nickel-titanium files for primary teeth under simulated body temperature.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
In the present research, the cyclic fatigue resistance (CFR) of four pediatric nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary files (Orodeka, Yirui M3, Baofeng and C-Root) was compared under simulated body temperature conditions. The instruments were tested in a simulated curved root canal (60° curvature, radius 5 mm) at 35 ± 1 °C. Measurements included the number of cycles to failure (NCF) and fragment length. The data were analyzed with the help of the Kruskal-Wallis test, whereas the fracture surfaces were scrutinized with the help of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to determine what caused the failure. In addition, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and lateral SEM observations were conducted. There were significant differences in the NCF between the groups (P < 0.001). The highest cyclic fatigue resistance was shown by the Orodeka system (median NCF: 336.68; IQR: 233.5-415.2), followed by Yirui M3 (median: 291.32; IQR: 228.3-334.8), Baofeng (median: 228.14; IQR: 193.7-301.3) and, finally, C-Root (median: 166.60; IQR: 110.4-200.5). Subsequent post hoc tests revealed that Orodeka and Yirui M3 had significantly higher NCF scores than C-Root (P < 0.001) and that Orodeka performed significantly better than Baofeng (P = 0.030). The difference among fragment lengths was not statistically significant (4.5-4.6 mm, P > 0.05). SEM examination verified the presence of fatigue cracks and ductile fracture properties with fatigue striations and dimples in all groups. DSC analysis revealed that Orodeka remained mostly in the highly flexible martensitic phase, and lateral SEM revealed severe machining defects on the surfaces of the Baofeng and C-Root files. In conclusion, there are significant differences in the CFR among the tested files because of the different metallurgical properties and cross-sectional designs across the files. Although all the systems can be used in pediatrics, the Orodeka system showed the best cyclic fatigue resistance under simulated body temperature. The regular replacement of instruments is still needed to ensure clinical safety.
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.