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

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.

Automated summary

This study compared the differences between original and replica-like endodontic systems in terms of various factors. The replica-like files showed significant differences in size and taper compared to the original files. There were also differences in phase-transformation behavior and the precision of measurement lines between the replica-like and original systems. Only One File exhibited significantly lower cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance compared to Reciproc, while there were no significant differences between X File and ProTaper Next in these aspects. Although the replica files have acceptable mechanical properties, they lack consistency in terms of standardization and design.