This study compared the original (ProTaper Next and Reciproc) endodontic systems with their replica‐like brands (X File and Only One File) in terms of standardisation, design, phase‐transformation behaviour, composition and mechanical behaviour. X File showed greater taper values than ProTaper Next, while Only One File had the greatest tip diameter. Both replica‐like files had an active tip and greater dimensions than their reports. There were also significant differences between the original and replica‐like systems in terms of their phase‐transformation behaviour and the precision of the measurement lines. Only One File showed significantly lower cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance than Reciproc (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the cyclic fatigue, torsional resistance and composition of NiTi between X File and ProTaper Next (p > 0.05). Although replica systems show mechanical properties that can be acceptable, they are not consistent in terms of standardisation and design.

No abstract