Home > Journals > Minerva Dental and Oral Science > Past Issues > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 June;71(3) > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 June;71(3):174-9



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 June;71(3):174-9

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.21.04465-X


language: English

Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance evaluation of Reciproc R25 instruments after simulated clinical use

Eugenio PEDULLÀ 1, Giusy R. M. LA ROSA 1 , Giovanni FRANCIOSI 2, Giacomo CORSENTINO 2, Silvia RAPISARDA 1, Fabio LO SAVIO 3, Guido LA ROSA 3, Simone GRANDINI 2

1 Department of General Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy; 2 Department of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, University of Siena, Siena, Italy; 3 Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

BACKGROUND: To assess the influence of multiple uses on the cyclic flexural fatigue and torsional resistance of Reciproc R25 (REC25) instruments.
METHODS: Overall, 256 canals (two for each mandibular molar) were prepared using Reciproc R25 instruments. A total of 96 25-mm-long Reciproc R25 instruments were divided in six groups (N.=8) on the basis of different number of canals shaped: new instruments (control group), one, two, three, four, or six canals shaped during simulated clinical use for other groups respectively. Sixteen files were used for each of the six groups (eight instruments for cyclic fatigue test and eight ones for torsional test). Times to fracture (TtF) for cyclic fatigue and ultimate torsional strength and angle of rotation to fracture for torsional resistance were recorded. Data were statistically evaluated by the analysis of variance (ANOVA) with P<0.05.
RESULTS: As for cyclic fatigue resistance, there was no significant difference between new REC25 and REC25 used in one, two and three canals respectively (P>0.05). REC25 used in four and six canals showed significant lower times to fracture when compared with other groups (P<0.05) with REC25 used in six canals showing the significant lowest times to fracture (P<0.05). Considering torsional resistance parameters, no significant difference was observed between the new and used instruments (P>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: REC25 files showed a significant decrease in cyclic fatigue resistance only when used in four or more molar canals while their torsional behavior was not affected by multiple uses.

KEY WORDS: Cyclic fatigue; multiple uses; Reciproc; simulated clinical use; torsional behaviour

top of page