Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{203449,
        author = {Dr. Sumita Bhagwat and Dr. Mansi Vandekar and Dr. Gayatri Pendse and Dr. Shreya Kothari and Dr. Pauravi Hegde and Dr. Shanice Almeida},
        title = {Production Of Dentin Defects by Reciproc File System as Compared to Protaper Rotary File Systems During Endodontic Treatment in Permanent Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2026},
        volume = {12},
        number = {12},
        pages = {11525-11531},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=203449},
        abstract = {Background
Nickel-titanium (NiTi) endodontic file systems have significantly improved the efficiency and predictability of root canal treatment. However, mechanical stresses generated during instrumentation may induce dentinal defects such as craze lines, microcracks, and fractures, potentially compromising long-term tooth prognosis. Continuous rotary systems such as ProTaper and reciprocating systems such as Reciproc differ in their kinematics, metallurgy, and stress distribution, which may influence the incidence of dentinal damage. 

Aim
To systematically compare the dentin defects produced by ProTaper rotary file systems and Reciproc reciprocating file systems during endodontic treatment in permanent teeth. 

Methods
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420250648459). Electronic databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ProQuest were searched for studies published from 2000 onwards. In vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo studies comparing ProTaper (Universal, Gold, Next) and Reciproc (Reciproc, Reciproc Blue) systems in permanent teeth were included. Data extraction and study selection were performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUIN tool. 

Results
A total of 21 in vitro studies were included. ProTaper systems demonstrated a higher incidence of dentinal defects in most studies, particularly in the apical third of roots, with crack incidence ranging from 20–60%. Reciproc systems, especially Reciproc Blue, showed fewer defects, with crack incidence ranging from 5–30%. In 13 studies, ProTaper systems produced significantly more dentinal defects than Reciproc systems (p < 0.05). Micro-CT studies further revealed that some postoperative cracks were pre-existing before instrumentation. Overall, the reciprocating systems exhibited lower stress on radicular dentin and were associated with reduced dentinal damage compared to rotary systems.},
        keywords = {},
        month = {May},
        }