RESUMEN
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.