Multimethod Evaluation of the Novel Reciproc Minima System: Geometric Design, Mechanical Performance, and Irrigation...

Objectives: To compare the geometric design, metallurgical properties, mechanical performance, and irrigation dynamics of Reciproc Minima (M20 and M25) and Reciproc Blue R25 instruments. Methods: One hundred and eighty instruments (n = 60/group) were evaluated. Geometry was analyzed using stereomicroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and 3D surface scanning. Metallurgical characteristics were assessed by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry. Mechanical performance tests (n = 10/group) included cyclic fatigue, torsional resistance, bending resistance, buckling resistance, and cutting efficiency. Irrigation dynamics were examined through computational fluid dynamics simulations based on a micro-CT-derived mandibular molar model prepared according to each system and combined with open-ended, side-vented, or double side-vented needles. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05). Results: The results showed that blade dimensions increased progressively from Minima M20 to Reciproc Blue R25. All instruments had S-shaped cross-sections and non-active tips. Energy-dispersive spectroscopy confirmed near-equiatomic NiTi composition, and similar phase transformation temperatures were observed across groups. Minima M20 showed the highest cyclic fatigue resistance (p < 0.0001), whereas Minima R25 exhibited greater angular deflection (p < 0.0001). Reciproc Blue R25 had the highest buckling resistance and lowest flexibility (p < 0.0001). M25 showed the lowest axial force, indicating the numerically highest cutting efficiency, but it did not differ significantly from Reciproc Blue R25 (p > 0.05). No needle delivered irrigant to working length. The open-ended needle achieved greater apical penetration, particularly with Reciproc Blue R25. Minima M20 generated the highest wall shear stress, and Reciproc Blue R25 the lowest apical pressure. Conclusions: Reciproc Minima and Reciproc Blue R25 showed similar metallurgical characteristics; however, differences in geometric design resulted in distinct mechanical behaviors and irrigation fluid dynamics. These findings suggest that low-taper reciprocating instruments may represent a conservative alternative in anatomically challenging canals, while clinicians should consider the associated differences in mechanical behavior and irrigation dynamics when selecting the most appropriate instrument.