1. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974. 18(2):269–296.
2. Schilder H, Yee F. Cohen S, Burns RC, editors. Canal debridement and disinfection. Pathways of the Pulp. 1984. 3rd ed. St Louis, MO: CV Mosby;175–204.
3. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod. 1975. 1(8):255–262.
4. Schafer E, Tepel J, Hoppe W. Properties of endodontic hand instruments used in rotary motion. Part 2. Instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod. 1995. 21(10):493–497.
5. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 1988. 14(7):346–351.
6. Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1995. 21(3):146–151.
7. Schafer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2006. 39(3):196–202.
8. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An Analysis of Canal Centering Using Mechanical Instrumentation Techniques. J Endod. 1999. 25(6):441–445.
9. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, Wevers M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2003. 36(4):288–295.
10. Schafer E, Florek H. Efficiency of rotary nickel titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2003. 36(3):199–207.
11. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004. 30(8):559–571.
12. Ayar LR, Love RM. Shaping ability of ProFile and K3 rotary Ni-Ti instruments when used in a variable tip sequence in simulated curved root canals. Int Endod J. 2004. 37(9):593–601.
13. Yang GB, Zhou XD, Zhang H, Wu HK. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in simulated root canals. Int Endod J. 2006. 39(10):791–799.
14. Yun H, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping ability of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003. 95(2):228–233.
15. Kang MS, Kim HC, Hur B, Park JK. Comparison of shaping ability of rotary Ni-Ti file systems used by undergraduates. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2006. 31(1):1–10.
16. Lim JJ, Kim DJ, Hwang YC, Hwangm IN, Oh WM. The change of canal configuration after instrumentation by several Nickel-Titanium files in the simulated canal with abrupt curvature. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2005. 30(4):303–311.
17. Lim YK, Park JK, Hur B, Kim HC. Comparison of shaping ability between single length technique and crown-down technique using Mtwo rotary file. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2007. 32(4):385–396.
18. Calhoun G, Montgomery S. The effects of four instrumentation techniques on root canal shape. J Endod. 1988. 14(6):273–277.
19. Kum KY, Spangberg L, Cha BY, et al. Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod. 2000. 26:719–723.
20. Sonntag D, Ott M, Kook K, Stachniss V. Root canal preparation with the NiTi systems K3, Mtwo and ProTaper. Aust Endod J. 2007. 33(2):73–81.
21. Lee BK, Kim DJ, Hwang YC, Hwang IN, Oh WM. A comparative study on the canal configuration after shaping by profile, protaper™ and K-flexofile in simulated canals with different angles of curvature. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2005. 30(4):294–302.
22. Schäfer E, Oitzinger M. Cutting efficiency of five different types of rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2008. 34(2):198–200.
23. Yoshimine Y, Ono M, Akamine A. The shaping effects of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod. 2005. 31(5):373–375.