ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2026
Comparison of the cyclic fatigue resistance of original and replica-like files: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the existing literature and quantitatively analyze the cyclic fatigue resistance of original and replica-like nickel-titanium endodontic files. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across four electronic databases up to July 6, 2025, following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251086699). The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using criteria adapted from previous in vitro systematic reviews. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of original and replica- like files using time to fracture (TTF) and number of cycles to fracture (NCF) as outcomes. These were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was analyzed using the I² statistic. Results: A total of 14 studies involving 1,276 endodontic files (nine original and 31 replica-like types) were included. Based on TTF values, replica-like files showed significantly greater cyclic fatigue resistance than original files (SMD, -0.845; 95% CI, -1.268 to -0.423; p < 0.001). However, NCF-based analysis revealed no statistically significant difference (SMD, -1.532; 95% CI, -3.615 to 0.550; p = 0.149). Conclusions: Replica-like files exhibited cyclic fatigue resistance comparable to original instruments and may be considered potential alternatives. However, due to high heterogeneity and methodological variability, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
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.