The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2022 ) > List of Articles


An Appraisal on Newer Endodontic File Systems: A Narrative Review

Mohammed Mustafa, Kailash Attur, Kamal Kumar Bagda, Shalini Singh, Anjali Oak, Nishtha V Kathiria

Keywords : MicroMega One RECI, ProTaper Gold, ProTaper Ultimate, RECIPROC blue, TruNatomy

Citation Information : Mustafa M, Attur K, Bagda KK, Singh S, Oak A, Kathiria NV. An Appraisal on Newer Endodontic File Systems: A Narrative Review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (9):944-952.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3398

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-02-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: This narrative review aims to explore and elicit the newer endodontic file systems used for root canal treatments._x000D_ Background: The primary goals of endodontic therapy continue to be the mechanical enlargement and shaping of the intricate endodontic root canal systems to aid in disinfection. Nowadays endodontists have access to a wide range of endodontic file systems for root canal preparations with various design characteristics and benefits._x000D_ Review results: ProTaper Ultimate (PTU) files' tip have a parallelogram convex cross-section, an offset mass of rotating design, a maximum flute diameter of 1.0 mm, and are constructed of gold wire, hence, commonly applied in conditions with restricted accessibility or an extremely curved canal. TruNatomy shaping files have a slim 0.8 mm maximum flute diameter, allowing for dentin preservation, and feature an off-centered crosssection with a regressive taper for superior efficiency. In comparison to PTU files, ProTaper Gold (PTG) files are noticeably more elastic and fatigue-resistant. Compared to files in the F1–F3 range, size S1 and S2 files have a significantly longer fatigue life. MicroMega One RECI is more resistant to cyclic fatigue because of its heat treatment and reciprocating action and the C-wire heat treatment of the former gives it flexibility and controlled memory, enabling the prebending of the file. The RECIPROC blue demonstrated enhanced flexibility, increased fatigue resistance, and lower microhardness while maintaining the same surface qualities._x000D_ Conclusion: As per the necessity and requirement on case to case basis, every endodontic file system has advantages and disadvantages as mentioned in this narrative review. According to the need, an endodontist can select the file system which is required specifically. Although several studies are comparing these various systems in the literature, this narrative review aims to give the clinician a summary of some recently launched endodontic rotary file systems available in the market and their clinical uses._x000D_ Clinical significance: As per the priority and need of the case, whether removal and extrusion of debris, reduction of micro-organisms, keeping canal anatomy, and cutting efficiency, a specific required file system can be utilized.

PDF Share
  1. Generali L, Borghi A, Lusvarghi L, et al. Evaluation of the usage-induced degradation of Genius and RECIPROC nickel–titanium reciprocating instruments. Odontology 2019;107(4):473–481. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-019-00423-9.
  2. Laurindo FV, de Figueiredo JAP. Reciprocating versus Rotary instruments: A review. Revista Odonto Ciência 2016:31;135. DOI: 10.15448/1980-6523.2016.3.20917.
  3. Zanza A, Seracchiani M, Reda R, et al. Metallurgical tests in endodontics: A narrative review. Bioengineering (Basel) 2022;9(1):30. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9010030.
  4. Gomes MS, Vieira RM, Böttcher DE, et al. Clinical fracture incidence of rotary and reciprocating NiTi files: A systematic review and meta-regression. Aust Endod J 2021;47(2):372–385. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12484.
  5. Siddique R, Nivedhitha MS. Effectiveness of rotary and reciprocating systems on microbial reduction: A systematic review. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(2):114–122. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_523_18.
  6. Zubizarreta–Macho Á, Martínez AA, Costa CF, et al. Influence of the type of reciprocating motion on the cyclic fatigue resistance of reciprocating files in a dynamic model. BMC Oral Health 2021;21(1):179. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01538-8.
  7. Tyagi R, Khatri A, Kalra N, et al. Comparative evaluation of hand K-flex files, pediatric rotary files, and reciprocating files on instrumentation time, postoperative pain, and child's behavior in 4–8-year-old children. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(2):201–206. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1919.
  8. Sobotkiewicz T, Huang X, Haapasalo M, et al. Effect of canal curvature location on the cyclic fatigue resistance of reciprocating files. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25(1):169–177. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03348-8.
  9. Shaik RT, Uppalapati SVV, Uppu LN, et al. Cone–beam computed tomography assessment of canal-centering ability for traditionally used nickel titanium and nickel titanium files with reciprocating hand piece and WaveOne files. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2021;13(Suppl. 1):S88–S91. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_568_20.
  10. Barasuol JC, Alcalde MP, Bortoluzzi EA, et al. Shaping ability of hand, rotary and reciprocating files in primary teeth: A micro-CT study in vitro. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2021;22(2):195–201. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-020-00530-0.
  11. Tomson PL, Simon SR. Contemporary cleaning and shaping of the root canal system. Prim Dent J 2016;5(2):46–53. DOI: 10.1308/ 205016816819304196.
  12. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, et al. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: RECIPROC and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45(5):449–461. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x.
  13. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012;38(6):850–852.
  14. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filling and canal master techniques. J Endod 1991;17(6):275–279. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81866-2.
  15. Berutti E, Chianddussi G, Paolino DV, et al. Canal shaping with WaveOne primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system. A comparative study. J Endod 2012;38(4):505–509. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen. 2011.12.040.
  16. Berutti E, Paolino D, Chiandussi G, et al. Root canal anatomy preservation of WaveOne reciprocating files with or without glide path. J Endod 2012;38(1):101–104. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.030.
  17. Bürklein S, Tsotsis P, Schäfer E. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation: Reciprocation versus rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2013;39(4):501–504. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.045.
  18. Liu R, Hou BX, Wesselink PR, Wu M-K, Shemesh H. The incidence of root microcracks caused by 3 different singlefile systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod 2013;39(8):1054–1056.
  19. Adorno CG, Yoshioka T, Suda H. Crack initiation on the apical root surface caused by three different nickel–titanium rotary files at different working lengths. J Endod 2011;37(4):522–525. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.12.002.
  20. Plotino G, Rubini AG, Grande NM. Cutting efficiency of RECIPROC and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. J Endod 2014;40(8):1228–1230. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.01.041.
  21. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical re-treatment. J Endod 2004;30(12):827–845. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000145033.15701.2d.
  22. Zuolo AS, Mello JE Jr, Cunha RS, et al. Efficacy of reciprocating and rotary techniques for removing filling material during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2013;46(10):942–945. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12085.
  23. Rios MdeA, Villela AM, Cunha RS, et al. Efficacy of 2 reciprocating systems compared with a rotary retreatment system for gutta–percha removal. J Endod 2014;40(4):543–546. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.11.013.
  24. Silva EJ, Orlowsky NB, Herrera DR, et al. Effectiveness of rotatory and reciprocating movements in root canal filling material removal. Braz Oral Res 2015;29(1):1–6. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2015.vol29.0008.
  25. ProTaper Ultimate Solution: Endodontic Files. USA: Dentsply Sirona Inc.; 2021 August 9. Available at: (Accessed 15 August 2022).
  26. Ruddle C. The ProTaper technique. Endod Top 2005;10:187–190. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00115.x.
  27. Azim AA, Aksel H, Zhuang T, et al. Efficacy of 4 irrigation protocols in killing bacteria colonized in dentinal tubules examined by a novel confocal laser scanning microscope analysis. J Endod 2016;42(6):928–934. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.03.009.
  28. Manigandan K, Ravishankar P, Sridevi K, et al. Impact of dental operating microscope, selective dentin removal and cone beam computed tomography on detection of second mesiobuccal canal in maxillary molars: A clinical study. Indian J Dent Res 2020;31(4):526–530. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_353_20.
  29. Silva EJNL, Lima CO, Barbosa AFA, et al. Preserving dentine in minimally invasive access cavities does not strength fracture resistance of restored mandibular molars. Int Endod J 2021;54(6):966–974. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13487.
  30. Vieira GC, Pérez AR, Alves FR, et al. Impact of contracted endodontic cavities on root canal disinfection and shaping. J Endod 2020;46(5):655–661. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.02.002.
  31. Vorster M, van der Vyver PJ, Paleker F. Influence of Glide Path Preparation on the Canal Shaping Times of WaveOne Gold in Curved Mandibular Molar Canals. J Endod 2018;44(5):853–855. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.01.017.
  32. TruNatomy Files. India: Dentsply Sirona Inc.; 2021 August 9. Available at: (Accessed 15 August 2022).
  33. Clark D, Khademi J. Modern molar endodontic access and directed dentin conservation. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54(2):249–273. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2010.01.001.
  34. Gluskin AH, Peters CI, Peters OA. Minimally invasive endodontics: Challenging prevailing paradigms. Br Dent J 2014;216:347–353. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.201.
  35. Clark D, Khademi JA. Case studies in modern molar endodontic access and directed dentin conservation. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54(2):275–289. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2010.01.003.
  36. Papa J, Cain C, Messer HH. Moisture content of vital vs endodontically treated teeth. Dent Traumatol 1994;10(2):91–93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1994.tb00067.x.
  37. Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. Tooth survival following non-surgical root canal treatment: A systematic review of the literature. Int Endod J 2010;43(3):171–189. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01671.x.
  38. Sedgley CM, Messer HH. Are endodontically treated teeth more brittle? J Endod 1992;18(7):332–335. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06) 80483-8.
  39. Tang W, Wu Y, Smales RJ. Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 2010;36(4):609–617. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.002.
  40. ProTaper Gold Rotary File: Shaping. India: Dentsply Sirona Inc.; 2021 August 9. Available at: (Accessed 15 August 2022).
  41. Hieawy A, Haapasalo M, Zhou H, et al. Phase transformation behaviour and resistance to bending and cyclic fatigue of ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Universal instruments. J Endod 2015;41(7):1134–1138. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.02.030.
  42. Silva E, Muniz B, Pires F, et al. Comparison of canal transportation in simulated curved canals prepared with ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Gold systems. Restor Dent Endod 2016;41(1):1–5. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2016.41.1.1.
  43. Elnaghy A, Elsaka S. Shaping ability of ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Universal files by using cone-beam computed tomography. Indian J Dent Res 2016;27(1):37–42. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.179812.
  44. MicroMega One RECI: Micro-Mega, France: Micro-Mega SA; 2021 April 12. Available at: (Accessed 15 August 2022).
  45. Kharouf N, Pedullà E, Nehme W, et al. Apically extruded debris in curved root Canals Using a New Reciprocating Single-File Shaping System. J Endod 2022;48(1):117–122. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2021.10.002.
  46. RECIPROC Blue. Germany:; 2016. Available at: (Accessed 15 August 2022).
  47. Plotino G, Grande N, Testarelli L, et al. Cyclic fatigue of RECIPROC and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. Int Endod J 2012;45(7):614–418. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02015.x.
  48. Elnaghy A, Elsaka S. Torsion and bending properties of OneShape and WaveOne instruments. J Endod 2015;41(4):544–547. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.11.010.
  49. Pereira E, Gomes R, Leroy A, et al. Mechanical behaviour of M-Wire and conventional NiTi wire used to manufacture rotary endodontic instruments. Dent Mater 2103;29(12):e318–e324. DOI: 10.1016/
  50. Lopes H, Gambarra–Soares T, Elias C, et al. Comparison of the mechanical properties of rotary instruments made of conventional nickel–titanium wire, M-Wire, or nickel–titanium alloy in R-phase. J Endod 2013;39(4):516–520. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.12.006.
  51. De-Deus G, Silva E, Vieira V, et al. Blue thermomechanical treatment optimizes fatigue resistance and flexibility of the RECIPROC files. J Endod 2017;43(3):462–466. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.039.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.