RESUMEN
Objective @#To compare the shaping ability of 3 different nickel (Ni)-titanium (Ti) systems in simulated root canals in resin and to provide a reference for clinicians.@*Methods@#Forty-eight resin blocks were prepared using the F360 (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) (Group 1), F6 SkyTaper (20/06) (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) (Group 2), F6 SkyTaper (25/06) (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) (Group 3) and Reciproc R25 systems (VDW, Munich, Germany) (Group 4) (n=12 canals/group). The images taken before and after preparation were superimposed and analyzed by Adobe Photoshop v7.0. The amount of resin removed by each system was measured, and the centering ability was assessed. The data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 20.0.@*Results @#At the 1 mm point, the transportation in Group 4 [(0.10 ± 0.03) mm] was significantly greater than that in Groups 2 [(0.05 ± 0.03) mm] and 3 [(0.05 ± 0.03) mm] (P < 0.05). At the 8 mm and 9 mm points, the transportation values in Group 4 [(0.12 ± 0.06) mm and (0.13 ± 0.05) mm] were significantly higher than those in Groups 2 [(0.05 ± 0.05) mm and (0.05 ± 0.05) mm] and 3 [(0.05 ± 0.04) mm and (0.06 ± 0.05) mm] (P < 0.05). At the 10 mm point, the transportation was significantly greater in Group 4 [(0.13 ± 0.06) mm] than in Group 2 [(0.06 ± 0.06) mm].@*Conclusion@#F6 SkyTaper exhibits better centering ability than Reciproc.