A critical appraisal of studies on cyclic fatigue resistance of engine‐driven endodontic instruments

The endodontic literature contains a plethora of studies on static and dynamic cyclic fatigue resistance tests performed on a large array of rotary or reciprocating nickel–titanium endodontic instruments. It was the aim of this review to summarize the currently available evidence to point out the different outcomes from static versus dynamic tests and to assess whether cyclic fatigue tests provide useful data and information for clinical practice. An electronic literature research in the database PubMed was performed using appropriate search terms, and the titles and were screened for relevance. Language was restricted to English. The review reveals marked differences between the results obtained in static and dynamic tests, and also, the results for the same instruments assessed either under static or dynamic experimental conditions are widely inconsistent. Between the lowest and the highest value for one and the same pathfinding instrument was a factor of about 123 when cyclic fatigue was assessed either under static or dynamic experimental conditions. Moreover, standard deviations of up to 30% have been reported. Environmental temperature has a 500% impact on the lifetime of instruments. In conclusion, fatigue resistance tests conducted under room temperature should be regarded as having little meaning and the scientific and clinical benefits of fatigue resistance tests are very limited. These data should be provided by the manufacturer of the instruments.