| Summary: | 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 (<i>n</i> = 30): (1) Reciproc<sup>®</sup>, (2) Reciproc Blue<sup>®</sup>, (3) Wave One Gold<sup>®</sup> and (4) Procodile<sup>®</sup>. Each group was divided into three subgroups according to the motion used: (A) Reflex Dynamic<sup>®</sup> (<i>n</i> = 10), (B) ReFlex Smart<sup>®</sup> (<i>n</i> = 10) and (C) conventional reciprocating motion (<i>n</i> = 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 (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Conclusion: Smart motions increase cyclic fatigue strength. ReFlex Smart<sup>®</sup> motion increases the cyclic fatigue strength of reciprocating rotary systems, and Procodile<sup>®</sup> ReFlex Smart was the most resistant system file.
|
|---|