The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the two different Ni-Ti file systems and the two different engine systems in simulated canals.

A total of four groups of each 10 were tested. Each group was instrumented with HeroShaper®and Endo-Mate2® (Group HE), HeroShaper® and Tecnika® (Group HT), ProFile® and Endo-Mate2® (Group PE), and ProFile® and Tecnika® (Group PT).

Canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed. The amounts of increased width and centering ratio were measured and calculated at apical 1, 3 and 5 mm levels.

These data were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test

The results of this study were as follows;

1. Canal preparation time of HT group was the shortest (p < 0.05).

2. The amount of increased canal width in HE group was significantly larger than PT group at apical 1 mm level (p < 0.05). At apical 3 mm level, PT group was significantly smaller than other groups (p < 0.05). At apical 5 mm level, PE group was significantly larger than PT group (p < 0.05).

3. The amount of centering ratio in HE group was significantly larger than other groups (p < 0.05). At apical 5 mm level, HT group was significantly larger than PE group and PT group (p < 0.05).

Under the condition of this study, torque-controlled endodontic motor is safer than no torque controlled motor, especially when the active file is used.