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. Based on less files in clinical sequence, easy selection of file to suite the case, no change in motor settings.
3. In comparison to a traditional rotary file system. Internal data on file. For more information contact Consumables-Data-Requests@dentsplysirona.com
4. In comparison to a traditional file system. Internal data on file. For more information contact Consumables-Data-Requests@dentsplysirona.com
5. Compared to Reciproc™
6. 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.