Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Design, metallurgical features,

mechanical performance and canal
preparation of six reciprocating
instruments
Duarte Marques, Felipe Belladonna
International Endodontic Journal

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Original Art icle Evaluat ion of Surface Charact erist ic Changes of Reciproc, waveOne and Wave…
Dr Wahid Zargar

Comparison of design, met allurgy, mechanical performance and shaping abilit y of replica-like and cou…
Duart e Marques, Felipe Belladonna, E. Silva

Evolut ion of nickel-t it anium inst rument s: from past t o fut ure
Gijo Jose
 doi:10.1111/iej.13529

Design, metallurgical features, mechanical

performance and canal preparation of six
reciprocating instruments

J. N. R. Martins1,2,3 , E. J. N. L. Silva4,5 , D. Marques2,3,6, F. Belladonna5 ,

M. Simo ~ es-Carvalho5 , V. T. L. Vieira4, H. S. Antunes4, F. M. B. Braz Fernandes7 &
M. A. Versiani8
1
Department of Endodontics, Faculdade de Medicina Dent aria, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon; 2Unidade de Investigacß~
ao em
Ci^encias Orais e Biomedicas (UICOB), Faculdade de Medicina Dent aria, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon; 3Centro de Estudo de
Medicina Dent aria Baseada na Evid^encia (CEMDBE), Faculdade de Medicina Dent aria, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal;
4
Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Grande Rio University (UNIGRANRIO), Rio de Janeiro; 5Department of
Endodontics, Fluminense Federal University, Niteroi, Brazil; 6LIBPhys-FCT UID/FIS/04559/2013, Lisboa; 7CENIMAT/I3N,
Department of Materials Science, NOVA School of Science and Technology, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal;
and 8Dental Specialty Center, Brazilian Military Police, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Abstract whilst differences in phase transformation tempera-

Martins JNR, Silva EJNL, Marques D, Belladonna F,
Simo~ es-Carvalho M, Vieira VTL, Antunes HS,
Fernandes FMB, Versiani MA. Design, metallurgical
features, mechanical performance and canal preparation of six
reciprocating instruments. International Endodontic Journal,
54, 1623–1637, 2021.
Aim To compare six reciprocating instruments regard-
ing their geometric design, metallurgical characteristics,
mechanical behaviour and ability to prepare root canals.
Methodology A total of 246 new 25-mm NiTi
instruments (41 per group) from six reciprocating sys-
tems (Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, One Files, One Files Blue,
Reverso Silver, and WaveOne Gold) were evaluated
throughout a multimethod approach regarding their
design using stereomicroscopy (number of blades and
helix angle) and scanning electron microscopy (blades
symmetry, cross section and surface finishing), nickel-ti-
tanium composition, phase transformation temperatures,
mechanical performance (cyclic fatigue, torsional and
bending resistance) and unprepared canal surface area
on anatomically matched mandibular molars assessed by
micro-CT. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s or
Mood’s median tests were selected depending on sample
distribution with significance level set at 5%.
Results The instruments had similarities regarding
their metal composition and unprepared canal area,
tures and geometric design (number of blades, surface
finishing and tip geometry) were observed. Overall, no
difference was observed regarding the maximum tor-
que values (P > 0.05), whilst One Files (72 s) and
One Files Blue (414 s) had the shortest and longest
times to fracture, respectively (P < 0.05). Similar
angles of rotation were observed in Reciproc (310°),
One Files (285°) and Reverso Silver (318°) instru-
ments (P > 0.05), which were significantly lower
than Reciproc Blue (492°), One Files Blue (456°) and
WaveOne Gold (492°; P < 0.05). Maximum bending
load demonstrated that Reciproc Blue (201.3 gf) was
significantly more flexible that the other instruments
(P < 0.05).
Conclusion Although there were similarities in
metal composition and percentage of unprepared
canal surface, the instruments had differences in the
overall geometric design, phase transformation tem-
peratures and in the four mechanical resistance
parameters (time to fracture, maximum torque, angle
of rotation and maximum bending load).
Keywords: bending load, cyclic fatigue, differential
scanning calorimetry, micro-CT, reciprocation, tor-
sional strength.
Received 18 December 2020; accepted 5 April 2021

Correspondence: Jorge N. R. Martins, Faculdade de Medicina Dentaria da Universidade de Lisboa, Cidade Universit
aria, 1649-
003 Lisboa, Portugal (Tel: +351 96 52 64 0 63; e-mail: jnr_martins@yahoo.com.br).

© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 1623
 Features of six reciprocating instruments Martins et al.
Introduction
Effective debridement and disinfection of the root
canal space are the most important goals of root
canal treatment (Haapasalo et al. 2005). The
mechanical aspect involved in this process moved
from using stainless-steel hand files to highly flexible
nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments in the early
1990s. With this new technology, procedural errors
associated with hand instrumentation, such as ledg-
ing or canal transportation, became less common
(Gutmann & Gao 2012). However, an increase in the
incidence of instrument fracture has been noted
(Tzanetakis et al. 2008). To overcome this limitation,
efforts have been made to improve the mechanical
performance of NiTi instruments including thermal
treatments (Zupanc et al. 2018, Silva et al. 2019),
surface electropolishing (Anderson et al. 2007), design
changes (Anderson et al. 2007) and kinematics (De-
Deus et al. 2010). Regarding the latter, the applica-
tion of the asymmetric oscillatory motion concept in
the mechanical preparation of root canals with NiTi
instruments, the so-called reciprocating movement
(Yared 2008), has been suggested to be superior to
continuous rotary motion in several ways including
cyclic fatigue resistance (De-Deus et al. 2010, Lee
et al. 2013), extension of the life of instruments (Fer-
reira et al. 2017) and reduced occurrence of plastic
deformation and fracture (Plotino et al. 2015).
The first reciprocating systems introduced into the
market were Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) and
WaveOne (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland)
systems. Reciproc instruments are made of a ther-
mally processed M-Wire proprietary metal alloy with
regressive taper and an inverted S-shaped cross-sec-
tional design. The Reciproc Blue system (VDW) was
launched more recently and, whilst having similar
geometric design, its different heat treatment gives
the instrument a bluish colour and makes it highly
flexible and more resistant to cyclic fatigue (De-Deus
et al. 2017, Generali et al. 2020). The original
WaveOne instruments (Dentsply Sirona) were also
made from the M-wire alloy and had two distinct tri-
angular cross sections. In its current version, how-
ever, WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Sirona) has a
parallelogram cross section, with one or two cutting
edges, and a heat treatment alloy (Gold Wire) that
turns the instrument’s surface yellowish (Topcßuoglu
et al. 2017). The global acceptance of the reciprocat-
ing motion led to the development of NiTi instru-
ments with similar characteristics to well-known
1624 International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021
brand systems, the so-called replica-like (Martins et al.
2020a), such as Reverso Silver (Access, Shenzhen,
China), One Files (Flydent, Shenzhen, China) and One
Files Blue (Flydent) instruments, all having S-shaped
cross sections, according to their manufacturers.
These systems are being marketed worldwide through
either e-commerce or well-known distribution compa-
nies. However, to date, most of them have no scien-
tific evidence to support their efficacy or safety.
The multimethod research approach is capable of
providing comprehensive knowledge by taking advan-
tage of the strength of each method whilst minimizing
their limitations by combining the results of each
method, thus improving the global research internal
validation (Hunter & Brewer 2015, Silva et al. 2020).
Therefore, the present study aimed to use a multi-
method research approach to compare the geometric
design, metallurgical features, mechanical perfor-
mance and canal preparation ability of the well-
known brands Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, WaveOne
Gold, with Reverso Silver, One Files and One Files
Blue replica-like systems. The null hypothesis to be
tested was that there were no differences amongst
these instruments regarding their design and mechan-
ical efficiency.
Material and methods
A total of 246 new 25-mm NiTi instruments (41 per
group) from six reciprocating systems (Reciproc R25,
Reciproc Blue R25, One Files R25, One Files Blue
R25, Reverso Silver SO25, and WaveOne Gold Pri-
mary; Table 1; Fig. 1) were tested regarding their
geometric design, metallurgical characteristics,
mechanical performance and canal preparation ability
(unprepared surface area) in canals of extracted molar
teeth.
Instrument design
Six randomly selected instruments from each system
were examined under stereomicroscopy at 93.4 and
913.6 magnifications (Opmi Pico; Carl Zeiss Surgical,
Jena, Germany) according to the following:
1. the number of active blades (in units);
2. the helix angle (average measurements of the 6
most coronal angles of the active blade assessed
in triplicate);
3. the distance (in mm) from the three measuring
lines to the instruments’ tip using a 0.01-mm reso-
lution digital calliper (Mitutoyo, Aurora, IL, USA).
© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Martins et al. Features of six reciprocating instruments

Table 1 Characteristics of the six reciprocating NiTi instruments

Systems Instrument Category NiTi alloy Manufacturers Lot

Reciproc R25 Premium Brand Thermo-treated (M-Wire) VDW (Munich, Germany) 273810
One Files R25 Replica-like Not provided Flydent (Shenzhen, China) 01261805
Reverso Silver SO25 Replica-like Not provided Access (Shenzhen, China) 18060105
Reciproc Blue R25 Premium Brand Thermo-treated VDW (Munich, Germany) 274482
One Files Blue R25 Replica-like Thermo-treated Flydent (Shenzhen, China) 01261805
WaveOne Gold Primary Premium Brand Thermo-treated Dentsply (Ballaigues, Switzerland) 1574008

Figure 1 Tested instruments. On the top (from left to right): Reciproc, One Files, Reverso Silver, Reciproc Blue, One Files Blue
and WaveOne Gold; on the bottom: labelled packing boxes of the reciprocating systems tested in this study.

© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 1625
 Features of six reciprocating instruments Martins et al.
Values higher than 0.1 mm from the reference line
position were considered significant. Measurements
were made in triplicate and averaged;
4. detection of major defects or deformations
(missed, twisted or distorted blades). Then, under
conventional scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
(S-2400; Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan), at 9100 and
9500 magnification, the same instruments were
evaluated regarding the spirals’ symmetry in the
active part (symmetrical or asymmetrical), the tip
geometry (active or nonactive), the cross-sectional
shape, and the presence of surface marks, defor-
mations or defects produced by the machining
process.
Metallurgical characterization
Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC; DSC 204 F1
Phoenix; Netzsch-Ger€ atebau GmbH, Selb, Germany)
and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (Bruker
Quantax; Bruker Corporation, Billerica, MA, USA)
with SEM (S-2400; Hitachi) (EDS/SEM) were used to
assess the metallurgical features of the instruments
and their semi-quantitative elemental constitution,
respectively. EDS/SEM analysis (20 kV and 3.1 A)
was performed at a 25-mm distance on the surface
(400 µm2) of three instruments of each type using a
dedicated software with ZAF correction (Systat Soft-
ware Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). DSC analysis was car-
ried out in a 3 to 5-mm fragment (7–10 mg)
acquired from the coronal active portion of two
instruments from each system following the American
Society for Testing and Materials guidelines (ASTM
International 2004). Each sample was exposed to a
chemical bath consisting of a mixture of 45% nitric
acid, 30% distilled water and 25% hydrofluoric acid
for 2 min, and then mounted in an aluminium pan,
with an empty pan serving as control. In each group,
DSC test was performed twice in order to confirm the
results. Thermal cycles were performed under a gas-
eous nitrogen (N2) atmosphere with temperatures
ranging from 150 to 150 °C (cooling/heating rate:
10 K min 1). Transformation temperature charts
were created with dedicated software (Netzsch Proteus
Thermal Analysis; Netzsch-Ger€atebau GmbH).
Mechanical tests
Cyclic fatigue, torsional and bending resistance tests
were performed at room temperature (20 °C) to evalu-
ate the mechanical behaviour of instruments. All
1626 International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021
instruments were initially inspected under stereomi-
croscopy (913.6 magnification), and no deformation
or defects were observed. Reciproc R25 was set as refer-
ence for sample size calculation based on its highest dif-
ference to one of the other systems after six initial
measurements, with 80% power and alpha-type error
of 0.05. For the time to fracture (effect size:
250.0  135.7; Reciproc vs One Files Blue), maximum
torque (effect size: 0.23  0.16; Reciproc vs Reverso
Silver), angle of rotation (effect size: 146.8  91.9;
Reciproc vs One Files Blue) and maximum load test (ef-
fect size: 194.3  104.8; Reciproc vs One Files), a total
of 6, 9, 8 and 6 files per group were determined, respec-
tively. A final sample size for each test was then estab-
lished as 10 instruments per group.
Cyclic fatigue tests followed the same protocol
reported in previous studies (Martins et al. 2020b, Silva
et al. 2020) using a nontapered custom-made stainless-
steel tube apparatus. The tested instruments were acti-
vated at a static position in an asymmetric oscillatory
counterclockwise motion using the preset programs
RECIPROC ALL (Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, Reverso Sil-
ver, One Files and One Files Blue) or WAVEONE ALL
(WaveOne Gold system) using a 6 : 1 reduction hand-
piece (Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, Bensheim, Ger-
many) powered by a torque-controlled motor (VDW
Silver; VDW GmbH). Glycerin was used as lubricant.
The time to fracture was established in seconds when
fracture was detected by visual and auditory inspec-
tion, and the fragment size (in mm) recorded for experi-
mental control. International specifications (ISO 3630-
3631:2008 2008) were used for torsional and bending
resistance tests. For the former, each instrument was
clamped in its apical 3 mm, rotated counterclockwise
on a constant pace (2 rotations min 1) until rupture to
assess the maximum torque (in N.cm) and angle of
rotation (in degrees) prior to fracture (TT100 Odeme
Dental Research, Luzerna, Santa Catarina, Brazil). For
the latter, instruments were mounted in the file holder
of the motor and positioned at 45° in relation to the
floor, whilst their apical 3 mm were attached to a wire
connected to an universal testing machine (Instron
EMIC DL-200 MF, S~ ao Jose dos Pinhais, Brazil). Then,
the maximum load needed for a 45° displacement of
the file, using a load of 20 N and 15 mm min 1 of con-
stant speed, was recorded in gram/force (gf).
Shaping ability
One-hundred two-rooted mandibular molars,
extracted for reasons not related to this study, were
© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

collected from a tooth bank after approval of the local
Ethics Committee (CE202002). All specimens were
previously imaged at 14.25 µm (pixel size) in a
micro-CT device (SkyScan 1173; Bruker-microCT,
Kontich, Belgium). Scanning parameters were set at
70 kV, 114 µA, 180° of rotation in steps of 0.5°,
using a 1-mm thick aluminium filter. After recon-
struction using standardized parameters (NRecon
v.1.6.9; Bruker-microCT), root canal configuration
was evaluated in each specimen (CTVol v.2.2.1; Bru-
ker-microCT) and pre-operative parameters (length,
volume, surface area and structure model index) of
each main root canal were calculated (CTAn
v.1.14.4; Bruker-microCT) (Versiani et al. 2013). The
specimens were then anatomically matched to create
six groups of four teeth (n = 11 canals per group).
After checking normality (Shapiro-Wilk test) and
homoscedasticity (Levene’s test) of the acquired
parameters, the homogeneity degree of the groups
was confirmed (P > 0.05; One-way ANOVA test).
Then, each set of teeth was randomly assigned (by
removing a coded paper from a black bag) to one of
the six experimental groups according to the prepara-
tion system: Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, Reverso Silver,
One Files, One Files Blue and WaveOne Gold.
In all groups, the same instrumentation protocol
was followed. After conventional access cavity prepa-
ration, patency was confirmed with a size 10 K-file
(Ready Steel; Dentsply Sirona) and the working length
(WL) established 0.5 mm from the main foramen.
Glide path was done with a size 15 K-file (Ready
Steel; Dentsply Sirona) and then, root canal shaping
was performed with the instruments adapted to a
6 : 1 angle handpiece (Sirona Dental Systems GmbH)
activated in an asymmetric oscillatory counterclock-
wise motion up to the WL (VDW Silver motor; VDW
GmbH), according to manufacturers’ directions.
WaveOne Gold group was used in the WAVEONE
ALL program of the motor, whilst all others in RECI-
PROC ALL. Irrigation was performed with a total of
15 mL of 2.5% NaOCl per canal, followed by a final
rinse with 17% EDTA (5 mL) and distilled water
(5 mL) using a syringe fitted with a 30-G NaviTip
needle (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA) positioned
1 mm from the WL. All procedures were performed
by an operator with large experience in using recipro-
cating systems in clinics. After drying the root canals
(Reciproc R25 paper points; VDW), a final scan and
reconstruction were performed using the previously
mentioned parameters.
© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Martins et al. Features of six reciprocating instruments
Co-registered data sets of the specimens before and
after preparation (3D Slicer 4.3.1 software; http://
www.slicer.org) were used to render 3D models of the
root canal system (CTAn v.1.14.4; Bruker-microCT).
The surface of pre-operative root canal models was
textured to simulate the pulp tissue, and post-opera-
tive models were coloured in black to allow the quali-
tative comparison amongst groups (Autodesk 3ds
Max 2021; Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, CA, USA),
whilst quantitative evaluation of post-operative mor-
phological parameters (volume, surface area, and
structure model index) was performed using CTAn
v.1.14.4 software (Bruker-microCT). The percentage
of the untouched canal walls (unprepared surface
areas) was also determined by the formula (Au/
Ab)*100, where Au and Ab represent the unprepared
area and the canal area before preparation, respec-
tively. An examiner blinded to the preparation proto-
cols performed all the analyses.
As for mechanical tests, a sample size determina-
tion was also initially performed considering the 18
first obtained results (three paired canals per group)
regarding the unprepared canal surface in the tested
specimens. Considering that Reciproc R25 instrument
was defined as reference for sample size calculation
based on its highest difference to one of the other sys-
tems, and considering an 80% power, alpha-type
error of 0.05, an effect size of 5.32 and a standard
deviation of 8.60 a total of 42 paired root canals per
group would be required to observe difference
amongst groups. Considering the large sample size of
paired canal that would be required to pair amongst
six groups (42 paired canals) and the low clinical
impact that this could have on such a large sample, a
total of 11 paired canals were defined, as mentioned,
following previous studies methodologies (Martins
et al. 2020b, Silva et al. 2020).
Statistical analysis
The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to verify data normal-
ity. Fragment length and unprepared canal surface
were compared using one-way ANOVA and post hoc
Tukey’s tests, whilst nonparametric Mood’s median
test was selected to evaluate time to fracture, maxi-
mum torque, angle of rotation and maximum bending
load. Results were summarized using both mean (s-
tandard deviation) and median (interquartile range)
values with a significance level of 5% (SPSS v22.0 for
Windows; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 1627
 Features of six reciprocating instruments Martins et al.

Results Metallurgical characterization

Instrument design
Table 2 summarizes the stereomicroscopic evaluation
of the instruments. Although no difference was
observed in the helix angles of the instruments, One
Files, Reverso Silver and WaveOne Gold had different
numbers of blades compared to Reciproc, Reciproc
Blue, and One Files Blue. The position of measuring
lines in the Reverso Silver, One Files and One Files
Blue instruments was not within 0.1 mm compared
to the reference lengths. SEM analysis revealed an
overall similarity of all instruments, except for the
WaveOne Gold instrument (Fig. 2), which had the
typical offset parallelogram-shaped cross section,
whilst all other instruments had an inverted S-shaped
profile, with more rounded edges in the One Files
Blue. None of the tips could be clearly identified as
active, but the transition angles to the blade and their
overall geometry varied amongst instruments. No
major defects or deformations could be observed in
the stereomicroscopic analysis (Table 2), but higher
SEM magnification of the blades demonstrated distinct
surface finishing with Reverso Silver showing a
smoother appearance (Fig. 3). Reciproc, Reciproc Blue
and WaveOne Gold had horizontal marks resulting
from the grinding manufacturing process, whilst these
marks in the One Files and One Files Blue appeared
to be smoothed by polishing. No severe irregularities
were noted in most of instruments, except for a few
larger metal rollovers in One Files Blue or a few
marks compatible with early crack propagation near
the cutting edges in the One Files and peel-off of
inclusions in the Reverso Silver (Fig. 3).
A nearly equiatomic composition of titanium and
nickel elements was observed in the instruments,
whilst no other metallic component was detected. In
the DSC test (Fig. 4), Reciproc had a mixed austenite
plus R-phase (R-phase start [Rs] 51.1 °C) at room
temperature (20 °C), whilst One Files and Reverso Sil-
ver instruments had stronger austenitic characteris-
tics with Rs very close to room temperature (20.3
and 21.2 °C, respectively), with the DSC chart reveal-
ing a very similar phase transformation temperatures.
Reciproc Blue, One Files Blue and WaveOne Gold had
martensitic characteristics with R-phase finish (Rf) at
20.7, 33.3 and 29.6 °C, respectively. One Files Blue
was the only instrument with higher Rf (33.3 °C)
temperature.
Mechanical tests
Table 3 and Fig. 5 summarize the results of the
mechanical tests. In the cyclic fatigue test, no differ-
ence was observed between Reciproc (172.5 s) and
WaveOne Gold (145.0 s) instruments (P > 0.05),
whilst One Files (72.0 s) and One Files Blue (414.0 s)
had the shortest and longest times to fracture, respec-
tively (P < 0.05). Overall, no difference was observed
regarding the maximum torque values amongst
instruments (P > 0.05), except between the Reciproc
Blue and Reciproc (P < 0.05) or One Files (P < 0.05).
Similar angles of rotation were observed in the Reci-
proc (310°), One Files (285°) and Reverso Silver
(318°) instruments (P > 0.05), which were lower
than Reciproc Blue (492°), One Files Blue (456°) and
WaveOne Gold (492°; P < 0.05). Regarding the

Table 2 Stereomicroscopic assessment of the instruments (median and interquartile range)

Measuring lines position (in mm)

Number of Defects or
Instruments n blades Helix angle (in °) 18 mm 20 mm 22 mm deformations

Reciproc R25 6 8 151.4 [148.4–155.8] 18.0 [17.9–18.0] 20.1 [19.9–20.1] 22.0 [21.9–22.0] 0
One Files R25 6 6 153.1 [151.9–153.5] 18.4 [18.2–18.6] 20.5 [20.2–20.6] 22.5 [22.4–22.6] 0
Reverso Silver 6 6 152.9 [150.5–154.7] 18.3 [18.2–18.3] 20.5 [20.3–20.5] 22.2 [22.2–22.4] 0
SO25
Reciproc Blue 6 8 150.9 [149.5–153.5] 17.9 [17.8–18.0] 19.9 [19.8–20.1] 21.9 [21.8–22.0] 0
R25
One Files Blue 6 8 151.6 [150.1–152.5] 17.6 [17.6–17.7] 19.6 [19.6–19.7] 21.8 [21.6–21.9] 0
R25
WaveOne Gold 6 7 155.3 [150.6–157.3] 18.1 [17.8–18.2] 19.9 [19.8–20.1] 21.9 [21.7–22.1] 0
Primary

Significant discrepancies in the mean position of the measuring lines are identified with bold letters [values higher than 0.1 mm
from reference].

1628 International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 © 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Martins et al. Features of six reciprocating instruments

Figure 2 SEM images of the tested instruments showing the coronal, middle and apical portions of the active blades, the geom-
etry of their tips and their cross-sectional designs (from top to bottom). Except for the WaveOne Gold, which presented an offset
parallelogram-shaped cross section, and for the One Files Blue, which had more rounded edges, all other instruments showed
S-shaped cross sections. The transition angles to the blade and the overall geometry of the tips varied amongst instruments.

maximum bending load, Reciproc Blue had the lowest
result (higher flexibility; 201.3 gf; P < 0.05), whilst
the less flexible instrument was the One Files (525.1
gf; P < 0.05).
Unprepared canal surface
No significant difference was observed amongst instru-
ments regarding the 3D morphological parameters
calculated before or after preparation (P > 0.05;
Table 4), as well as, regarding the percentage of
unprepared surface areas (P > 0.05), which ranged
from 2.6 to 31.2% (Reciproc), 3.7 to 39.1% (Reciproc
Blue), 3.6 to 25.1% (Reverso Silver), 5.4 to 28.4%
(One Files), 5.5 to 27.0% (One Files Blue), and 2.7 to
28.5% (WaveOne Gold). None of the shaping protocols
prepared the entire surface area of the root canal walls
of the anatomically matched molars (Fig. 6).

© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 1629
 Features of six reciprocating instruments Martins et al.

Figure 3 SEM images of the instruments’ surface. Distinct machining marks were observed in all systems. Reciproc, Reciproc
Blue and WaveOne Gold had horizontal marks resulting from the grinding manufacturing process, whilst these marks in the
One Files and One Files Blue appeared to be softened. Reverso Silver showed the smoother surface appearance. One Files and
Reverso Silver had marks in some cutting edges compatible to early crack propagation or peel-off of inclusions (arrows).

account: different concepts that are closely intercon-

Discussion
In the literature, almost all investigations performed
to evaluate NiTi preparation systems usually employ
1 or 2 methods to compare 2 or 3 instruments (Best
et al. 2004, Cheung & Darvell 2007a). This is a valid
approach since it optimizes resources and time, and
simplifies the research process. On the other hand, it
does not allow a complete understanding of their
mechanical behaviour and, therefore, a series of
papers must be published to cover all of these aspects
resulting in the phenomenon of ‘knowledge compart-
mentalization’ in which knowledge structures about a
specific domain are composed of several separate parts
(Schoenfeld 1986). Spiro & Jehng (1990) emphasized
the harm of simplifying instruction in the domain of
medicine that does not take real complexity into
nected are acquired as separate knowledge units and
stored in different compartments. This causes inade-
quate oversimplifications in the application of these
knowledge structures and can yield two conse-
quences: limited understanding and gross oversimplifi-
cation in knowledge application (Mandl et al. 1993).
To overcome this limitation, a multimethod research
approach was recently advocated in the study of NiTi
canal preparation systems aiming to allow a more
comprehensive and complete assessment of the prop-
erties of NiTi instruments (Silva et al. 2020). In the
present study, this approach was chosen to compare
six reciprocating instruments regarding their overall
geometric design (number of blades, helix angle,
defects, cross section, tip, spiral symmetry, and posi-
tion of measuring lines) by using stereomicroscopy

1630 International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 © 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Martins et al. Features of six reciprocating instruments

Figure 4 DSC charts. Transformation temperature curves of each instrument are identified in different coloured lines (dark
green: WaveOne Gold; pink: One Files Blue; red: Reciproc Blue; light green: Reverso Silver; blue: One Files; black: Reciproc).
The lines on the top are reading from right to left and corresponds to the cooling curves and highlight the R-phase start (Rs)
and finish (Rf) and martensitic start (Ms) and finish (Mf) temperatures. The lines on the bottom are reading from left to right
and correspond to the heating curves showing the austenitic start (As) and finish (Af) temperatures. Reciproc showed mixed
austenite plus R-phase (Rs: 51.1 °C), whilst One Files and Reverso Silver instruments had a stronger austenitic characteristics
(Rs: 20.3 and 21.2 °C, respectively), at room temperature (20 °C). Reciproc Blue, One Files Blue and WaveOne Gold presented
martensitic characteristics with Rf at 20.7, 33.3 and 29.6 °C, respectively. One Files Blue was the instrument with higher Rf
(33.3 °C) temperature.

Table 3 Mean (standard deviation) and median [interquartile range] results of the mechanical testsa

Cyclic fatigue Torsional test

Bending test
Time to Fragment Maximum Torque Angle of Maximum load
Instruments n fracture (in s) length (in mm) (in N.cm) rotation (in °) (in gf)

Reciproc R25 10 178.8 (29.1) 7.8 (0.3) 1.7 (0.1) 317.4 (53.7) 321.1 (28.8)
172.5 [154.3–195.8] 7.9 [7.5–8.1] 1.70 [1.60–1.80] 310.0 [270.3–364.8] 324.0 [289.3–354.1]
One Files R25 10 76.8 (20.8) 7.5 (0.3) 1.8 (0.3) 301.4 (83.7) 518.9 (24.4)
72.0 [66.8–89.8] 7.5 [7.2–7.6] 1.75 [1.50–2.05] 285.0 [224.3–375.0] 525.1 [503.7–536.9]
Reverso 10 94.0 (38.3) 7.5 (0.6) 1.5 (0.1) 322.3 (45.1) 437.0 (56.6)
Silver SO25 90.5 [60.5–123.8] 7.4 [7.1–7.9] 1.50 [1.40–1.60] 318.5 [279.0–365.8] 430.6 [406.9–465.7]
Reciproc 10 223.5 (35.9) 7.8 (1.4) 1.5 (0.1) 479.5 (60.2) 200.5 (5.4)
Blue R25 216.5 [197.8–267.0] 8.2 [6.0–9.1] 1.50 [1.50–1.60] 492.5 [429.5–526.3] 201.3 [196.5–204.2]
One Files 10 409.6 (44.9) 7.3 (0.4) 1.6 (0.1) 454.9 (62.1) 287.8 (28.2)
Blue R25 414.0 [383.3–443.2] 7.2 [7.0–7.8] 1.60 [1.60–1.72] 456.5 [416.0–498.8] 292.8 [274.5–304.5]
WaveOne 10 160.5 (52.6) 7.1 (0.5) 1.7 (0.2) 478.7 (30.2) 387.3 (19.9)
Gold Primary 145.0 [123.8–192.5] 7.0 [6.7–7.2] 1.60 [1.50–1.83] 492.5 [463.8–498.3] 386.3 [367.7–398.6]
a
Figure 5 summarizes the significant differences amongst systems.

and conventional SEM, their semi-quantitative ele-
mental composition by EDS/SEM analysis, their phase
transformation temperatures by DSC assessment, their
mechanical behaviour by cyclic fatigue, torsional and
bending resistance tests, as well as, canal preparation
using extracted teeth analysed by micro-CT imaging
technology. All tests followed strict international
guidelines (ASTM International 2004, ISO 3630-
3631:2008 2008) or previously methods with high
internal validity (Versiani et al. 2013, Martins et al.
2020b, Silva et al. 2020), which allowed a complete
and accurate overview of the instruments’ properties.
Overall, although similarities could be observed
amongst the instruments regarding helix angles, tita-
nium and nickel composition and unprepared canal
surface (Tables 2 and 4), differences were observed in
the number of blades, temperature transition phases
and mechanical behaviour (Tables 2 and 3; Figs 4

© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 1631
 Features of six reciprocating instruments Martins et al.

Figure 5 On the left: box-and-whisker plots of time to fracture, torque, angle of rotation and bending resistance tests with
median values represented by the line within each box. On the right: hexagonal graphics with the statistical comparison of the
results. The red line connecting the instruments represents significant difference between them (P < 0.05).

and 5) and, therefore, the null hypothesis was correlating discussion of the data is mandatory. Since
rejected. no difference was observed in the metal alloy compo-
Considering that each of methods employed was sition amongst the instruments, knowledge regarding
complementary for the results obtained, the their phase transformation temperatures is of utmost

1632 International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 © 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Martins et al. Features of six reciprocating instruments

Table 4 Pre- and post-operative parameters (mean, standard deviation and range interval) evaluated in 66 root canals of
mandibular molars after preparation protocols with six reciprocating instruments (n = 11)

Reciproc One files Reverso Reciproc One Files WaveOne

Parameters R25 R25 silver SO25 blue R25 blue R25 gold primary p-valuea

Working length
Before (mm) 10.1  1.2 10.4  0.8 10.5  0.7 10.6  0.7 10.5  0.6 10.1  0.7 0.75
[7.9–11.7] [9.4–11.9] [8.9–11.2] [9.2–11.6] [9.9–11.8] [9.0–11.0]
Volume
Before (mm3) 5.4  3.6 4.7  2.9 3.6  2.0 3.9  3.1 3.8  2.4 3.9  2.5 0.67
[1.4–13.4] [1.6–10.4] [1.2–6.5] [1.3–11.7] [1.4–7.5] [1.3–8.9]
After (mm3) 8.0  4.3 7.3  3.2 5.9  1.8 6.3  3.5 6.1  2.6 6.0  2.5 0.61
[2.8–15.9] [4.0–13.0] [3.9–8.5] [3.7–15.5] [3.2–10.2] [3.7–11.4]
Surface area
Before (mm2) 42.7  22.4 37.3  15.0 32.4  11.8 32.7  18.4 33.2  14.6 32.3  13.2 0.66
[15.5–86.5] [20.9–66.6] [19.1–51.3] [17.4–78.6] [18.0–60.2] [17.1–56.0]
After (mm2) 45.6  19.5 42.7  15.0 38.6  9.1 38.1  16.1 39.1  15.4 37.8  11.1 0.81
[20.0–75.2] [27.8–76.6] [29.5–56.1] [26.6–81.8] [24.7–72.3] [26.7–58.6]
SMI
Before 1.7  0.6 1.9  0.5 2.0  0.7 1.9  0.5 2.0  0.6 1.8  0.7 0.77
[0.8–2.6] [1.0–2.6] [1.2–3.3] [1.1–3.0] [1.1–2.9] [0.5–2.4]
After 2.1  0.5 2.3  0.6 2.2  0.6 2.5  0.5 2.4  0.6 2.2  0.6 0.77
[1.2–2.8] [1.2–3.1] [1.5–3.6] [1.3–3.0] [1.4–3.0] [1.1–2.8]
Unprepared area
After (%) 14.6  9.2 15.5  7.2 12.7  7.6 11.1  10.1 11.7  7.2 12.3  9.3 0.83
[2.6–31.2] [5.4–28.4] [3.6–25.1] [3.7–39.1] [5.5–27.0] [2.7–28.5]

SMI, structure model index.

a
One-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s tests (a = 5%).

importance to explain differences in their mechanical
performance since austenitic and martensitic crystal-
lographic arrangements may present distinct beha-
viours (Zhou et al. 2013, Zupanc et al. 2018). In this
study, the lowest Rs temperatures were observed in
One Files (20.3 °C) and Reverso Silver (21.2 °C;
Fig. 4) giving them a strong austenitic characteristics
which partially explain their short time to fracture
(Zhou et al. 2013, Zupanc et al. 2018) in the cyclic
fatigue test, which addresses the ability of the instru-
ments to sustain cyclic compressive and tensile stress
under a curved trajectory, such as in cases of curved
root canals, and reduced flexibility (Table 3; Fig. 5) in
the bending resistance test, a parameter that provides
information regarding the ability of the instrument to
preserve the original canal path, mostly when used in
curved roots. Despite their smooth surface finish, the
mechanical performance of the One Files and Reverso
Silver instruments might have also been negatively
influenced by the presence of marks suggesting early
crack propagation (Cheung & Darvell 2007b), as
shown in Fig. 3, which may have led to premature
failures in the cyclic fatigue test. The highest Rs tem-
peratures were noted in WaveOne Gold (44.8 °C),
One Files Blue (46.2 °C) and Reciproc (51.1 °C)
instruments. However, whilst Rf in Reciproc was
observed at 12.8 °C, giving it a mixed austenite plus
R-phase constitution, in One Files Blue and WaveOne
Gold it was observed at 33.3 and 29.6 °C, respec-
tively, corresponding to a martensitic constitution
(Fig. 4). Due to the reorientation capacity of the
twinned phase structure, the martensitic instruments
possess a higher cyclic fatigue strength when com-
pared with austenitic ones (Zupanc et al. 2018). The
high martensitic composition of the One Files Blues
NiTi alloy combined with its smooth surface finishing
(Fig. 3) help to explain its superior result in the cyclic
fatigue test compared to all other instruments
(Table 3; Fig. 5). On the other hand, although clear
differences were noted in the phase transformation
temperatures, no significant difference was observed
in time to fracture between WaveOne Gold and Reci-
proc instruments. Differences in the instruments’
design, such as the slightly large cross section and
taper of WaveOne Gold, can explain this finding. It
also helps to understand why WaveOne Gold was less
flexible than Reciproc in the bending test (Table 3;
Fig. 5). However, the literature presents contradictory
reports regarding the mechanical behaviour of these
two instruments (Ozyurek 2016, Silva et al. 2016,

© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 1633
 Features of six reciprocating instruments Martins et al.

Figure 6 Micro-CT models of 18 anatomically matched mandibular molars showing their root canal systems before (surface
textured to simulate the pulp tissue) and after (black colour) preparation with the six tested reciprocating systems. In this
image, each system are represented by three anatomically matched molars. None of the shaping protocols prepared the whole
surface area of the canal walls.

Keskin et al. 2017), probably due to methodological
differences. Rs and Rf temperatures of Reciproc Blue
were 30.7 and 20.7 °C, respectively, revealing its
martensitic composition and explaining the longer
time to fracture and flexibility compared to One Files
(austenitic), Reverso Silver (austenitic) and Reciproc
(mixed austenitic; Fig. 5), which corroborate with
previous reports (Al-Obaida et al. 2019). Interestingly,
despite the high martensitic composition of the One
Files Blues compared to Reciproc Blue instrument, the
latter had significant more flexibility than the former.
As depicted in the cross-sectional evaluation of the
instruments (Fig. 2), the larger metal core of the One
Files Blues compared to Reciproc Blue may explain
this result.
The angle of rotation represents the maximum
rotation that an instrument would be able to support
before its fracture by torsion. Higher values on this
parameter are usually observed in large instruments,
since they tend to sustain high torque, as well as in
heat-treated instruments because of the increased
deformation ability resulting from their high ductility
and flexibility (Nina & Berzins 2013). It helps to
explain the significantly greater angle of rotation
observed in the martensitic instruments (Reciproc
Blue, One Files Blue and WaveOne Gold) compared to
the austenitic ones (Table 3; Fig. 5). Torsional
strength refers to the ability of an instrument to sus-
tain a mechanical twist when it is exposed to high
torsional loads. By testing rotary or reciprocating NiTi
systems, this mechanical property can be affected by
several factors including the thermomechanical pro-
cess applied during their manufacturing, the cross-
sectional design of the instrument and the chemical

1634 International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 © 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

composition of the alloy. In the present study, the
lowest torque to fracture was observed in the Reci-
proc Blue and Reverso Silver, with the former being
significantly different from Reciproc and One Files
instruments (Table 3; Fig. 5). These findings may be
partially explained by the austenitic state of Reciproc
and One Files compared to the martensitic-based Reci-
proc Blue instrument. Noteworthy, although Reverso
Silver presents austenitic characteristics, its maximum
torque was statistically similar to Reciproc Blue
(Fig. 5), which might be attributed by the presence of
superficial cracks (Fig. 3), which has been associated
with early instrument fracture phenomenon (Cheung
& Darvell 2007b; Fig. 3).
In order to simulate clinical usage, the multimethod
approach applied to this study included not only the
evaluation of the physical properties and metallurgical
features of the instruments, but also the preparation
of root canals in extracted molar teeth using a nonde-
structive, highly accurate and previous validated ana-
lytical tool. Preliminary efforts were made to ensure
comparability of the groups by anatomically matching
the specimens based on morphometric parameters of
the root canal system including configuration, length,
volume, surface area and structure model index. This
process creates a reliable baseline enhancing the
internal validity of the method and reducing the
anatomical bias that usually confound the outcomes
in this type of study (Versiani et al. 2013). Although
small differences could be observed in the instru-
ments’ design (Fig. 2), no significant differences were
noticed regarding the 3D morphological parameters
and the percentage of unprepared surface areas calcu-
lated after shaping procedures. Besides, no instrument
fracture or significant deviation of the original canal
was observed. The similar dimensions of the instru-
ment using anatomically balanced specimens, com-
bining with the same preparation protocol and
kinematics, can explain these findings. Interestingly,
despite differences in size and design of the WaveOne
Gold instrument, the percentage of unprepared canal
surface was similar to the other tested instruments,
corroborating a recent micro-CT study (Stringheta
et al. 2019), and might be attributed to the inherent
anatomical complexity of the root canal system of
mandibular molars. Considering the positive results of
the One Files Blue instrument in the mechanical tests,
it would be also expected a good handling during
shaping procedures. However, two events with this
instrument during this experimental step were
observed: (i) a handle of one instrument came loose
© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Martins et al. Features of six reciprocating instruments
during preparation and (ii) it was necessary to apply
a long apical pressure in order to reach the working
length. This latter aspect can be justified by its
rounded cutting edges (Fig. 2).
The strengths of the present study rely on the multi-
method research approach using well established and
validated methodologies together with the assessment
of instruments that had not been evaluated before for
their behaviour and safety. The only method with a
nonstandardized protocol used in this study was the
cyclic fatigue test. An extensive debate on different set-
tings involved in this method has been taking place
(H€ulsmann et al. 2019). It is important to understand,
however, that the laboratory nature of this test aimed
to measure the strength of the metal alloy and, by no
means, to mimic a clinical setting. In the present study,
the protocol for this test included the use of a nonta-
pered and highly curved artificial canal in which a sta-
tic model was applied to evaluate the instruments at
room temperature. Since the null hypothesis focussed
on the mechanical properties of the instruments, and
not on the effect of canal curvature or taper, this set-
ting is suitable to fulfil the purpose of the study by sub-
mitting the instruments to a high stress levels. The
static setting was chosen instead of the dynamic one
because of its reproducibility (internal validity) which
has been reported to be greater than the dynamic
model (H€ ulsmann et al. 2019). The last variable
involved in the cyclic fatigue is temperature. Heating
an artificial canal, or the surrounding environment,
may induce partial or total austenitic formation, obvi-
ously depending on the phase transformation tempera-
tures of the instrument, which may lead to a different
mechanical behaviour (Plotino et al. 2017). In the pre-
sent study, the One Files Blue rotated almost 7 min
before fracture. These extended periods rotating at body
temperature would induce crystalline geometric
changes on the instruments, which explains the out-
come differences observed when NiTi instruments are
tested at different temperatures (Plotino et al. 2017,
H€ulsmann et al. 2019). In the majority of the studies,
the time to fracture of instruments is usually several
minutes, which is not recommended in a clinical set-
ting. A recent study, for instance, reported that an
aggregate of 70 s would be enough to fully prepare all
root canals of maxillary molars (Alberton et al. 2020).
Thus, in clinics, it is unlikely that the short time in
which the instrument contacts the canal walls in the
presence of an irrigant solution used at room tempera-
ture, combined with the thermal insulating efficiency
of the dentine, would rise and stabilize the temperature
International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 1635
 Features of six reciprocating instruments Martins et al.
at a point to induce phase changes that may further
interfere with the outcome. It has been reported that
short instrumentation periods may not be enough to
raise the instruments temperature to body tempera-
ture, reaching approximately 30 °C on their surfaces
(Vasconcelos et al. 2016). Additionally, no manufac-
turer recommends heating their NiTi instruments.
Therefore, considering these inconsistencies regarding
the use of body temperature in the cyclic fatigue tests,
the present study performed this test at room tempera-
ture, which is also the temperature that instruments
are sold and stored. A limitation of the present study
was not to include other evaluations such as cutting
efficiency, microhardness, buckling evaluation and fine
geometric variations or dimensions of the tested instru-
ments, which are recommended to be evaluated in fur-
ther studies, as would be the comparison with other
available reciprocation systems or clinical studies that
would evaluate the root canal treatment outcomes
having the instrumentation systems into consideration.
Conclusions
Although similarities could be observed in the NiTi
alloy composition and canal preparation ability
amongst the systems tested, differences were observed
in their overall geometric design, such as the number
of blades, surface finishing and tip geometry, phase
transformation temperatures and mechanical perfor-
mance. Reciproc had a mixed austenite plus R-phase,
One Files and Reverso Silver instruments had a stron-
ger austenitic feature, and Reciproc Blue, One Files
Blue and WaveOne Gold had martensitic characteris-
tics. Overall, no difference was observed regarding the
maximum torque values, whilst similar angles of rota-
tion were observed in the Reciproc, One Files and
Reverso Silver instruments, which were lower than
Reciproc Blue, One Files Blue and WaveOne Gold.
One Files Blue outperformed the other instruments in
the cyclic fatigue, whilst Reciproc Blue had the great-
est flexibility.
Acknowledgements
FMBF acknowledges the funding of CENIMAT/i3N by
national funds through the FCT-Fundacßa ~o para a
Ci^encia e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the scope of Mul-
tiannual Financing of R&D Units, reference UIDB/
50025/2020-2023. The authors acknowledge E.
Camacho for running the DSC tests. The authors also
1636 International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021
express their gratitude to VDW for supplying the Reci-
proc and Reciproc Blue instruments for this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors have stated explicitly that there are no
conflicts of interest in connection with this article.
References
Alberton CS, Tomazinho FSF, Calefi PS, Duarte MAH, Vivan
RR, Baratto-Filho F (2020) Influence of the preparation
order in four-canal maxillary molars with WaveOne Gold
system. Journal of Endodontics 46, 1291–6.
Al-Obaida MI, Merdad K, Alanazi MS et al. (2019) Compar-
ison of cyclic fatigue resistance of 5 heat-treated nickel-ti-
tanium reciprocating systems in canals with single and
double curvatures. Journal of Endodontics 45, 1237–41.
Anderson ME, Price JW, Parashos P (2007) Fracture resis-
tance of electropolished rotary nickel-titanium endodontic
instruments. Journal of Endodontics 33, 1212–6.
ASTM International (2004) ASTM F2004 17: standard test
method for transformation temperature of nickel-titanium
alloys by thermal analysis. 5 p.
Best S, Watson P, Pilliar P, Kulkarni G, Yared G (2004) Tor-
sional fatigue and endurance limit of a size 30.06 ProFile
rotary instrument. International Endodontic Journal 37,
370–3.
Cheung GS, Darvell BW (2007a) Fatigue testing of a NiTi
rotary instrument. Part 1: strain-life relationship. Interna-
tional Endodontic Journal 40, 612–8.
Cheung GS, Darvell BW (2007b) Fatigue testing of a NiTi
rotary instrument. Part 2: fractology analysis. International
Endodontic Journal 40, 619–25.
De-Deus G, Moreira EJ, Lopes HP, Elias CN (2010) Extended
cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in
reciprocating movement. International Endodontic Journal
43, 1063–8.
De-Deus G, Silva EJ, Vieira VT et al. (2017) Blue thermome-
chanical treatment optimizes fatigue resistance and flexi-
bility of Reciproc files. Journal of Endodontics 43, 462–6.
Ferreira F, Adeodato C, Barbosa I, Aboud L, Scelza P, Zac-
caro Scelza M (2017) Movement kinematics and cyclic
fatigue of NiTi rotary instruments: a systematic review.
International Endodontic Journal 50, 143–52.
Generali L, Puddu P, Borghi A et al. (2020) Mechanical
properties and metallurgical deatures of new and ex vivo
used Reciproc Blue and Reciproc. International Endodontic
Journal 53, 250–64.
Gutmann JL, Gao Y (2012) Alterations in the inherent
metallic and surface properties of nickel-titanium root
canal instruments to enhance performance, durability and
safety: a focused review. International Endodontic Journal
45, 113–28.
© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, Coil JM (2005) Eradication
of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation
solutions. Endodontic Topics 10, 77–102.
H€ulsmann M, Donnermeyer D, Sch€afer E (2019) A critical
appraisal of studies on cyclic fatigue resistance of engine-
driven endodontic instruments. International Endodontic
Journal 52, 1427–45.
Hunter A, Brewer JD (2015) Designing multimethod
research. In: Hesse-Biber S, Johnson RB, eds. The Oxford
Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research
Inquiry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
ISO 3630-3631:2008 (2008) Dentistry – root canal instru-
ments – part 1: general requirements and test methods.
Keskin C, Inan U, Demiral M, Keles A (2017) Cyclic fatigue
resistance of Reciproc Blue, Reciproc, and WaveOne Gold
reciprocating instruments. Journal of Endodontics 43,
1360–3.
Lee W, Hwang YJ, You SY, Kim HC (2013) Effect of recipro-
cation usage of nickel–titanium rotary files on the cyclic
fatigue resistance. Australian Endodontic Journal 39, 146–
50.
Mandl H, Gruber H, Renkl A (1993) Chapter 8 misconcep-
tions and knowledge compartmentalization. Advances in
Psychology 101, 161–76.
Martins JNR, Nogueira Leal Silva EJ, Marques D et al.
(2020a) Influence of kinematics on the cyclic fatigue resis-
tance of replicalike and original brand rotary instruments.
Journal of Endodontics 46, 1136–43.
Martins JNR, Silva EJNL, Marques D et al. (2020b) Compar-
ison of design, metallurgy, mechanical performance and
shaping ability of replica-like and counterfeit instruments
of the ProTaper Next system. International Endodontic Jour-
nal. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13463
Nina E, Berzins D (2013) Torsion and bending properties of
shape memory and superelastic nickel-titanium rotary
instruments. Journal of Endodontics 39, 101–4.
Ozyurek T (2016) Cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc,
WaveOne, and WaveOne Gold nickel-titanium instru-
ments. Journal of Endodontics 42, 1536–9.
Plotino G, Grande NM, Porciani PF (2015) Deformation and
fracture incidence of Reciproc instruments: a clinical eval-
uation. International Endodontic Journal 48, 199–205.
Plotino G, Grande NM, Mercade Bellido M, Testarelli L, Gam-
barini G (2017) Influence of temperature on cyclic fatigue
resistance of ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Universal rotary
files. Journal of Endodontics 43, 200–2.
Schoenfeld A (1986) On having and using geometric knowl-
edge. In: Hiebert J, ed. Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge:
The Case of Mathematics, 1st edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Martins et al. Features of six reciprocating instruments
Silva E, Giraldes JFN, de Lima CO, Vieira VTL, Elias CN,
Antunes HS (2019) Influence of heat treatment on tor-
sional resistance and surface roughness of nickel-titanium
instruments. International Endodontic Journal 52, 1645–51.
Silva E, Martins JNR, Lima CO et al. (2020) Mechanical tests,
metallurgical characterization and shaping ability of NiTi
rotary instruments: a multimethod research. Journal of
Endodontics 46, 1485–94.
Silva E, Tinoco JM, Tinoco EMB, Vieira VTL, Sassone LM,
Lopes HP (2016) Bending resistance and cyclic fatigue life
of a new single-file reciprocating instrument Waveone
Gold. European Endodontic Journal 1, 1–4.
Spiro R, Jehng J (1990) Cognitive flexibility and hypertext:
theory and technology for the nonlinear and multidimen-
sional traversal of complex subject matter. In: Nix D, Spiro
R, eds. Cognition, Education, and Multimedia: Exploring Ideas
in High Technology, 1st edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Stringheta C, Bueno C, Kato A et al. (2019) Micro-computed
tomographic evaluation of the shaping ability of four
instrumentation systems in curved root canals. Interna-
tional Endodontic Journal 52, 908–16.
Topcßuoglu HS, D€ uzg€ un S, Akti A, Topcßuoglu G (2017) Labo-
ratoty comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne
Gold, Reciproc and WaveOne files in canals with a double
curvature. International Endodontic Journal 50, 713–7.
Tzanetakis GN, Kontakiotis EG, Maurikou DV, Marzelou MP
(2008) Prevalence and management of instrument frac-
ture in the postgraduate endodontic program at the Dental
School of Athens: a five-year retrospective clinical study.
Journal of Endodontics 34, 675–8.
Vasconcelos RA, Murphy S, Carvalho CA, Govindjee RG,
Govindjee S, Peters AO (2016) Evidence for reduced fati-
gue resistance of contemporary rotary instruments
exposed to body temperature. Journal of Endodontics 42,
782–7.
Versiani MA, Leoni GB, Steier L et al. (2013) Micro-computed
tomography study of oval-shaped canals prepared with the
self-adjusting file, Reciproc, WaveOne, and ProTaper uni-
versal systems. Journal of Endodontics 39, 1060–6.
Yared G (2008) Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti
rotary instrument: preliminary observations. International
Endodontic Journal 41, 339–44.
Zhou H, Peng B, Zheng Y (2013) An overview of the
mechanical properties of nickel-titanium endodontic
instruments. Endodontic Topics 29, 42–54.
Zupanc J, Vahdat-Pajouh N, Schafer E (2018) New thermo-
mechanically treated NiTi alloys—a review. International
Endodontic Journal 51, 1088–103.
International Endodontic Journal, 54, 1623–1637, 2021 1637