Comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of different rotational and reciprocal file systems

Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of the TruNatomy and ProTaper Next file systems, which work rotational movements, and Reciproc and WaveOne Gold file systems, which work reciprocal movements. Methods: ProTaper Next X2 (25/.06), WaveOne Gold Primary (25/.07), Reciproc R25 (25/.08), and TruNatomy Prime (26/.04) files were used in the cyclic fatigue test. Four groups, 15 files from each group and a total of 60 files, were rotated in an artificial canal made of curved stainless steel with a curvature angle of 60 degrees, an inner diameter of 1.5 mm, and a radius of curvature of 3 mm. The breaking times of the files were determined with a digital stopwatch, and this value was converted into the number of cycles until breaking. Compliance with normal distribution was examined with the Shapiro‒Wilk test. The number of cycles until fracture for the respective files, which did not follow a normal distribution, were compared using the Kruskal‒Wallis test and multiple comparisons were made with the Dunn test. The analysis results were presented as mean ± standard deviation and median (minimum-maximum). The significance level was taken as p<0.050. Results: While the TruNatomy system had the highest number of cycles until fracture occurred, no statistically significant difference was found between the Reciproc and WaveOne Gold systems. The ProTaper Next system showed the lowest cyclic fatigue resistance. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present in vitro study, TruNatomy, which makes rotational motion, showed the best cyclic fatigue resistance. The ProTaper Next system was the file with the lowest cyclic fatigue resistance. Obtaining similar results for files produced in different shapes and with different movement kinematics allowed us to conclude that cyclic fatigue is multifactorial. How to cite this article: Akın Tartuk G, Kaya S, Al Tai TN. Comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of different rotational and reciprocal file systems. J Med Dent Invest 2024;5:e240347. https://doi.org/10.5577/jomdi.e240347