To determine the actual revolutions per minute (rpm) values and compare the cyclic fatigue life of Reciproc (RPC, VDW GmbH), WaveOne (WO, Dentsply Maillefer), and TF Adaptive (TFA, Axis/SybronEndo) nickel-titanium (NiTi) file systems using high-speed camera.

Twenty RPC R25 (25/0.08), 20 WO Primary (25/0.08), and 20 TFA ML 1 (25/0.08) files were employed in the present study. The cyclic fatigue tests were performed using a dynamic cyclic fatigue testing device, which has an artificial stainless steel canal with a 60° angle of curvature and a 5-mm radius of curvature. The files were divided into 3 groups (group 1, RPC R25 [RPC]; group 2, WO Primary [WO]; group 3, TF Adaptive ML 1 [TFA]). All the instruments were rotated until fracture during the cyclic fatigue test and slow-motion videos were captured using high-speed camera. The number of cycles to failure (NCF) was calculated. The data were analyzed statistically using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA, p < 0.05).

The slow-motion videos were indicated that rpm values of the RPC, WO, and TFA groups were 180, 210, and 425, respectively. RPC (3,464.45 ± 487.58) and WO (3,257.63 ± 556.39) groups had significantly longer cyclic fatigue life compared with TFA (1,634.46 ± 300.03) group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the mean length of the fractured fragments.

Within the limitation of the present study, RPC and WO NiTi files showed significantly longer cyclic fatigue life than TFA NiTi file.

The aim of this study was to compare the dimensional standard of several nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) rotary files and verify the size conformity.

ProFile (Dentsply Maillefer), RaCe (FKG Dentaire), and TF file (SybronEndo) #25 with a 0.04 and 0.06 taper were investigated, with 10 in each group for a total of 60 files. Digital images of Ni-Ti files were captured under light microscope (SZX16, Olympus) at 32×. Taper and diameter at D₁ to D₁₆ of each files were calculated digitally with AnalySIS TS Materials (OLYMPUS Soft Imaging Solutions). Differences in taper, the diameter of each level (D₁ to D₁₆) at 1 mm interval from (ANSI/ADA) specification No. 101 were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's post-hoc test at 95% confidence level.

TF was the only group not conform to the nominal taper in both tapers (p < 0.05). All groups except 0.06 taper ProFile showed significant difference from the nominal diameter (p < 0.05).

Actual size of Ni-Ti file, especially TF, was different from the manufacturer's statements.