Almeida-Gomes, Fabio deMatos, Humberto Ramah Menezes deNunes, Rodrigo Ferreira Lopes ArraisArrais, Ariel MouraFerreira-Maniglia, ClaudioVitoriano, Marcelo de MoraisGurgel-Filho, Eduardo Diogo2016-11-012016-11-012016-05Almeida-Gomes Fabio de, Matos Humberto Ramah Menezes de, Nunes Rodrigo Ferreira Lopes Arrais, Arrais Ariel Moura, Ferreira-Maniglia Claudio, Vitoriano Marcelo de Morais, Gurgel-Filho Eduardo Diogo. Cyclic fatigue resistance of different continuous rotation and reciprocating endodontic systems. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2016 May-June; 27(3): 278-282.http://imsear.searo.who.int/handle/123456789/178117Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the cyclic fatigue resistance of nine types of endodontic instruments of nickel–titanium. Materials and Methods: Five files of 25 mm of length of each group: Reciproc (RC) R25; WaveOne (WO) Primary; Unicone (UC) L25 25/0.06; K3XF 25/0.06; ProTaper Universal F2 (PTF2); ProTaper Next X2 (PTX2); Mtwo 25/0.06; BioRaCe 25/0.06; One Shape L25 25/0.06 were subjected to a cyclic fatigue resistance test on a mechanical apparatus. The mean fracture time was analyzed statistically by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s honest significant difference post hoc test, with significance set at P < 0.05. Conclusion: It was observed that the groups PTX2, RC, R25, UC L25 25/0.06, and WO Primary presented greater cyclic fracture resistance than the other groups (P < 0.001).enCyclic fatigue resistanceendodonticinstrumentationReciprocreciprocating motionArticle