English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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

Analysis of the Importance of the Motion Used in the Resistance of Different Mechanical Instrumentation Systems in Endodontics: A Comparative Study