Gianluca Plotino1, Hany Mohamed Aly Ahmed2, Nicola Maria Grande3, Stephen Cohen4, Frédéric Bukiet5. 1. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: endo@gianlucaplotino.com. 2. School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia. 3. Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. 4. Arthur A Dugoni School of Dentistry, University of the Pacific, San Francisco, California. 5. UFR Odontologie de Marseille, Aix Marseille Université, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille, France; Laboratoire Biologie Santé et Nanosciences, Montpellier, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many reciprocating file systems (RFs) have recently been introduced. This article reviews the properties, effectiveness, and clinical outcomes of the RFs. METHODS: A PubMed electronic search was conducted by using appropriate key words to identify investigations on RFs. After retrieving the full-text relevant articles, the cross citations were also identified. RESULTS: This review summarizes the mechanical properties, shaping ability, preservation of the root canal anatomy, shaping time, cleaning effectiveness, microcrack formation, bacterial reduction, extrusion of debris, and removal of root canal filling materials of RFs. CONCLUSIONS: The favorable results of RFs indicate their potential application as viable alternatives to rotary file systems, yet no filing system is able to entirely prepare the dentin of canals, totally eliminate sessile and planktonic microorganisms, or remove the filling material completely from the root canal system.
INTRODUCTION: Many reciprocating file systems (RFs) have recently been introduced. This article reviews the properties, effectiveness, and clinical outcomes of the RFs. METHODS: A PubMed electronic search was conducted by using appropriate key words to identify investigations on RFs. After retrieving the full-text relevant articles, the cross citations were also identified. RESULTS: This review summarizes the mechanical properties, shaping ability, preservation of the root canal anatomy, shaping time, cleaning effectiveness, microcrack formation, bacterial reduction, extrusion of debris, and removal of root canal filling materials of RFs. CONCLUSIONS: The favorable results of RFs indicate their potential application as viable alternatives to rotary file systems, yet no filing system is able to entirely prepare the dentin of canals, totally eliminate sessile and planktonic microorganisms, or remove the filling material completely from the root canal system.