Root canal preparation may damage NiTi instruments resulting in wear and deformation. The aim of this study was to make a comparative evaluation of the surface topography of the cervical third of four different rotary systems, before and after being used twelve times, in 1.440 resin blocks with simulated root canals with standardized 45° curvatures, and analyzed by atomic force microscopy AFM. The blocks were divided into four groups and prepared according to the manufacturers recommendations: Group 1--K3®; Group 2--Protaper Universal®; Group 3--Twisted Files® and Group 4--Biorace®. After each preparation, the instruments were washed and autoclaved. A total of 240 instruments were selected, being 30 new instruments and 30 after having been used for the 12th time, from each group. These instruments were analyzed by AFM and for quantitative evaluation, the mean RMS (Root mean square) values of the cervical third of the specimens from the four groups were used. The result showed that all the rotary files used for the 12th time suffered wear with change in the topography of the cervical region of the active portion of the file (ANOVA p < 0.01). Classifying the specimens in increasing order, from the least to the greatest wear suffered, Group 3 (2.8993 nm) presented the least wear, followed by Group 4 (12.2520 nm), Group 1 (36.0043 nm) and lastly, Group 2 (59.8750 nm) with the largest amount of cervical surface wear.

The aim of this study was to make a comparative evaluation of the surface topography of the cervical third and tip of four different rotary systems, before and after being used 12 times, in resin blocks with simulated root canals with standardized 45° curvatures, and analyzed by scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). A total of 1,440 resin blocks with simulated root canals and standardized curvatures were used. The blocks were divided into four groups and prepared by the crown down technique according to the manufacturers' recommendations: Group 1 (G1)--K3®, Group 2 (G2)--Protaper Universal®, Group 3 (G3)--Twisted Files®, and Group 4 (G4)--Biorace®. After each preparation, the instruments were washed and autoclaved. A total of 24 instruments were selected, being three new instruments and three after having been used for the 12th time, from each group. These instruments were analyzed by SEM. To perform the evaluation, 24 micrographs were observed by 12 evaluators who attributed a score to the images according to a template. In the qualitative analysis of the cervical region and tip of new instruments, it was observe that the files of Groups G4 and G2 were the least rough and those of G1, the roughest. In the same manner, the cervical region of the instruments was qualitatively analyzed after the 12th time of using them, and there was no statistically significant difference at a level of 1% (ANOVA P < 0.01) between G2 and G4 as well as between G1 and G3. As regards the tip, it was observed that there was no statistically significant difference, at a level of 1%, between the groups: G1 and G3, G1 and G4, and between G3 and G4, and there was statistically significant difference at a level of 1%, between group G2 and the other groups, with G3 having the greatest roughness (ANOVA P < 0.01).