Comparison of mechanical resistance and standardisation between original brand and replica‐like endodontic systems

Abstract

This study compared the original (ProTaper Next and Reciproc) endodontic systems with their replica‐like brands (X File and Only One File) in terms of standardisation, design, phase‐transformation behaviour, composition and mechanical behaviour. X File showed greater taper values than ProTaper Next, while Only One File had the greatest tip diameter. Both replica‐like files had an active tip and greater dimensions than their reports. There were also significant differences between the original and replica‐like systems in terms of their phase‐transformation behaviour and the precision of the measurement lines. Only One File showed significantly lower cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance than Reciproc (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the cyclic fatigue, torsional resistance and composition of NiTi between X File and ProTaper Next (p > 0.05). Although replica systems show mechanical properties that can be acceptable, they are not consistent in terms of standardisation and design.

Assessing the cyclic fatigue resistance and sterilization effects on replica-like endodontic instruments compared to Reciproc Blue

“…Replica-like instruments of different brands were launched in the markets promising similar properties to the original Reciproc Blue system 16 , however, these systems have not been tested. To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies in the literature on the mechanical behavior of replica-like instruments including RC Blue of Dental Perfect (Shenzhen Perfect Medical Instruments, Shenzhen, China), Only One File Blue of Denco (Shenzhen Denco Medical, Shenzhen, China), Recip One Blue of Rogin Dental (Shenzhen Rogin Medical, Shenzhen, China) and Micro Blue of Microdont (Microdont, Shenzhen, China).…”