The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the shaping abilities of various hybrid instrumentation method using constant tapered file systems with ProTaper � S1 and the difference between experts and inexperienced clinicians in use of NiTi file.Three hybrid methods used in this study were composed of ProTaper � S1 and K-Flexofile � (group S), ProTaper � S1 and HeroShaper � (group H), and ProTaper � S1 and ProFile � (group P), respectively. The ProTaper � -alone method (group C) was introduced as a control group. After canal preparation, the lapse of time was recorded. The images of pre-and post-operative canal were scanned and superimposed. Amounts of instrumented canal widths and centering ratio were measured at apical 1, 2 and 3 ㎜ levels and statistical analysis was performed.In this study, both of the group C and S took more time to prepare canals than other groups. Inexperienced operators required more time for the entire preparation with the groups C and H than the experienced (p < 0.05). And the centering ratio of group P were preferable to ProTaper � -alone method or the hybrid technique using stainless steel files. As such, within experienced operators, group H also showed better results in addition to the group P.Under these condition, the hybrid methods of each the ProFile � system and HeroShaper � with ProTaper � are recommendable comparative to ProTaper � -alone method. According to the results, the hybrid instrumentation method is a more appropriate method of canal preparation than single file system for narrow or curved canals.