Cilj: Usporediti reznu površinu, očuvanje anatomije korijenskog kanala i neinstrumentiranu površinu nakon instrumentacije sustavima F360®, F6SkyTaper®, HyflexEDM®, iRace®, Neoniti®, O.Shape®, P.Next®, Reciproc®, Revo-S® i WaveOneGold® s veličinom instrumenta 25. Materijali i metode: Tristo zubi s jednim ravnim korijenom i okruglim ili eliptičnim presjekom korijenskog kanala podijeljeno je u 10 skupina (1-F360®, 2-F6SkyTaper®, 3-HyflexEDM®, 4-iRace®, 5-Neoniti®, 6-O Shape®, 7-P.Next®, 8-Reciproc®, 9-Revo-S® i 10-WaveOneGold®) i poprečno prerezano na trećine ultrafinim reznim diskovima. Uzorci su fotografirani pod stereomikroskopom i provedena je predinstrumentacijska analiza prije ponovnog spajanja zuba K-instrumentom #10 i epoksi smolom. Ručno je uspostavljena prohodnost K-instrumentima #10 i #15 te je svaka skupina instrumentirana jednim od rotacijskih ili recipročnih sustava. Rezna površina, očuvanje anatomije korijenskog kanala i neinstrumenirana površina analizirani su s pomoću AutoCAD-a 2015. Za statističku analizu korišteni su Leveneov test, Welchov test, Games-Howellsov test i Pearsonov hi-kvadrat test. Rezultati: Leveneov test nije pokazao jednakost varijacije (P < 0,05), pa su primijenjeni Welchov i Games-Howellov test u analizi rezne površine, pokazujući statistički značajne razlike za sve trećine i ukupno (P < 0,05). Nisu zabilježene razlike u očuvanju anatomije korijenskog kanala (P > 0,05). Što se tiče neinstrumentirane površine, pronađene su statistički značajne razlike (P < 0,05), pri čemu su u srednjoj trećini bili bolji Reciproc®, Neoniti® i WaveOneGold®, a u apikalnoj trećini P.Next®, Reciproc®, HyflexEDM®, Neoniti® i WaveOneGold®. Zaključci: Što se tiče rezne površine, P.Next® i Reciproc® bili su bolji u koronarnoj trećini, Neoniti® i HyflexEDM® u sredini i apikalno, a sveukupno Neoniti® i Reciproc®. Što se tiče očuvanja anatomije korijenskog kanala, svi su sustavi bili slični. S obzirom na neinstrumentiranu površinu, svi su sustavi postigli sličn, Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the cutting are, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas of F360®, F6-SkyTaper®, Hyflex-EDM®, iRACE®, Neoniti®, O.Shape®, P.Next®, Reciproc®, Revo-S® and Wave-One-Gold® size 25 files. Materials and Methods: 300 teeth with a single straight root and a circular or elliptical root canal were divided into 10 groups (1-F360®, 2- F6-SkyTaper®, 3-Hyflex-EDM®, 4-iRACE®, 5-Neoniti®, 6-O.Shape®, 7-P.Next®, 8-Reciproc®, 9-Revo-S® and 10-Wave-One-Gold®) cut into 3 cross sections using an ultrafine cutting disc. They were photographed under a stereo microscope and preinstrumentation analyses were made before rebuilding the teeth with# 10 K- File and epoxy glue. A glide path was created with #10 and #15 K files and each group was instrumented using rotary or reciprocating systems. Cutting areas, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas were analyzed using the AutoCAD 2015 Levene’s test, the Welch´s test, and the Games-Howell´s test. The Pearson’s chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis. Results: Levene’s test showed no equality of variances (P<0.05), therefore Welch´s and Games-Howell’s tests were applied to cutting areas, showing significant differences in all thirds and overall (P<0.05). No differences in root canal anatomy preservation were observed (P>0.05). In non-instrumented areas, significant differences were found (P<0.05) in middle third being better in Reciproc®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®, and in apical thirds being higher P.Next®, Reciproc®, HyflexEDM®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®. Conclusions: In cutting area, P.Next® and Reciproc® were superior in coronal third, Neoniti® and Hyflex EDM® medially and apically and Neoniti® and Reciproc® overall. Regarding the root canal anatomy preservation, all systems were similar. For noninstrumented areas, all systems achieved similar results coronally, but Reciproc®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in middle third and P.Next®