1. Zuolo, M.L., M.C. Carvalho, and G. De-Deus, Negotiability of Second Mesiobuccal Canals in Maxillary Molars Using a Reciprocating System. J Endod, 2015. 41(11): p. 1913-7. Based on treatment of MB2 canals of more than 300 patients. The aim was to assess the frequency in which Reciproc® R25 was able to directly scout and reach working lengths in comparison with hand files. In the hand file group working length was successfully reached in 57.48%. In the Reciproc® R25 group the working length was successfully reached in 85.63% of cases.
2. > 650 peer reviewed publications (number of publications on the Reciproc® family from PubMed (key words: Reciproc(title/ abstract), on June 30, 2023)
3. Based on less files in clinical sequence, easy selection of file to suite the case, no change in motor settings. Compared to rotary NiTi systems that are requiring a sequence of multiple files.
4. Less working steps for the customer, no sterilization prior and after use, no change of mechanical file in the contra-angle for most of the cases, less chairside organization
5. J. Roane, et al. The Balance force concept for instrumentation of curved canals, J. of Endodontics, 1985. 11(5): p203-211
6. Compared to rotary mechanized preparation. Influence of the Pecking Motion Frequency on the Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Endodontic Rotary Files, Zubizarreta-Macho et al., available under https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7020062/
7. Yared, G., Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J, 2008. 41(4): p. 339-44
8. De-Deus, G., et al., Apically extruded dentin debris by reciprocating single-file and multi-file rotary system. Clinical Oral Investigations, 2015. 19(2): p. 357-361
9. Kanter V, Weldon E, Nair U, et al. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of ultrasonic versus sonic endodontic systems on canal cleanliness and obturation.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;112(6):809- 813.doi:10.1016/j.tripleo. 2011.06.002.