目的：比较ProGlider、HyFlex EDM Glidepath File、RaCe ISO 10、PathFile和手动不锈钢K锉在树脂模拟根管制备通畅通道的成形能力。方法：60个树脂模拟根管，随机分为5组（n=12），使用5种器械分别制备通畅通道，记录制备时间；扫描仪获取制备前后根管图像，使用 Photoshop 和 ImageJ 软件进行图像重叠，并从根尖止点开始，每隔1 mm测量根管内外侧壁树脂去除量。以外弯量减去内弯量，表示中心定位能力。单因素方差分析进行统计学检验，显著水平为0.05。结果：ProGlider制备时间最短（61.018±5.020） s，手动不锈钢K锉最长（111.100±6.987）s （P＜0.05），其他3组差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。树脂去除量方面，根尖段外侧壁，HyFlex EDM Glidepath File小于ProGlider，差异有统计学意义（P <0.05），两者均小于其他3种锉（P <0.05），弯曲段内侧壁，ProGlider去除量最少（P<0.05），不锈钢K锉去除量最多（P<0.05），在直段，RaCe ISO 10内、外侧壁去除量均最多（P<0.05），HyFlex EDM Glidepath File其次（P<0.05），其他3组相当。中心定位能力方面，在根尖段，HyFlex EDM Glidepath File最优（P<0.05），ProGlider其次（P<0.05），其他3组差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；在弯曲段，ProGlider 和HyFlex EDM Glidepath File最优，PathFile其次，RaCe ISO 10再次，手动不锈钢K锉最差（P<0.05）；在直段，5组器械基本相当。结论：ProGlider、HyFlex EDM Glidepath File和RaCe ISO 10在模拟弯曲根管制备通畅通道效果优于或相当于PathFile，ProGlider制备时间显著降低，HyFlex EDM Glidepath File和RaCe ISO 10在根管上段开敞显著增加。

Objective： To compare the shaping ability of ProGlider, HyFlex EDM Glidepath File and RaCe ISO 10 with that of PathFile and stainless steel K-file hand instruments in simulated root canals. Methods: A total of 60 simulated resin blocks were divided randomly into five groups (n=12), each group prepared with each instrument, respectively. Preparation time was recorded. Pre- and post-operative images were obtained using a scanner and superimposed using Photoshop. The material removal from the inner and outer canal walls beginning from 0 mm at the end point of the canal were measured using ImageJ. Centering ability was determined, accordingly. The data were analyzed using the One-Way ANOVA at a significance level of P < 0.05. Results: Preparation time for ProGlider was (61.018±5.020) s, significantly the fastest (P < 0.05), that for SS K-file (111.100±6.987) s, the slowest (P < 0.05), and the differences among the other 3 groups were not significant (P>0.05). The removal of resin from the outer wall at the apical portion was significantly lower for HyFlex EDM Glidepath File than for ProGlider (P<0.05), both of them were significantly lower than the other 3 groups (P<0.05). For the removal from the inner wall at the curvature portion, ProGlider was the least whilst SS K-file the most (P<0.05). At the straight portion, RaCe ISO 10 removed the most not only from the inner but also the outer wall (P<0.05), HyFlex EDM Glidepath File the second most, and the other 3 groups among the same levels. As far as the centering ability was concerned, at the apical portion, HyFlex EDM Glidepath File was the best, ProGlider the second best, no significant difference identified among the other 3 groups. At the curvature portion, ProGlider and HyFlex EDM Glidepath File were the best, PathFile the second, RaCe ISO 10 the third, the worst was the SS K-file. At the straight portion, the difference amongt the 5 groups was not significant. Conclusion: The shaping abilities of ProGlider, HyFlex EDM Glidepath File and RaCe ISO 10 were better or comparable to that of PathFile, while the preparation time for ProGlider reduced significantly, and HyFlex EDM Glidepath File and RaCe ISO 10 removed significantly more resin at the straight portion of the canal.