Aim To evaluate simulated root canal preparation using two different preparation techniques- classical Pro Taper and reciprocating. Operators prepared resin blocks which were either uncovered or covered. Methodology Inexperienced operators were used to prepare simulated canals with ProTaper nickel titanium rotary files using an electric motor in both the classical ProTaper sequence of four files in a continually clockwise rotating action, and in a reciprocating clockwise and anticlockwise fashion using only one file from the ProTaper sequence- the F2. Canals were either covered with tape to obscure vision, or left uncovered. Photographs were taken of the canals before and after preparation, and the images superimposed for comparison. The canals were evaluated against the five requirements of root canal shape described by Schilder in 1974. Conclusion This research demonstrated that the classicalProTaper technique of four files was more likely to produce a preparation meeting Schilder's criteria for ideal mechanical shaping of root canals when compared to the reciprocating technique using one file. It also demonstrated that when the resin blocks were covered, it was more likely that a canal preparation would meet Schilder's criteria for ideal mechanical preparation of root canals than if they were uncovered.