###### Abstract
They provide researchers with standardized methodologies, protocols, and criteria, ensuring consistent and reliable data collection, analysis, and reporting. These standards enable reproducibility and comparability of research findings, allowing for the validation and verification of experimental results across different laboratories and research groups. This helps clinicians and researchers to make informed decisions when selecting materials for specific applications. However, while they provide valuable guidelines, they may not address the specific nuances and complexities of every research discipline or study design and, therefore, researchers need to critically evaluate and adapt these standards to suit their specific research goals and context. One of the significant challenges in dental material testing is the replication of complex working conditions. This issue poses a major hurdle in achieving accurate and reliable test results that can directly correlate with real-world clinical situations. By recognizing these limitations, researchers and manufacturers have been working towards developing innovative testing approaches that strike a balance between scientific rigor and clinical relevance. However, due to the intricate nature of clinical environments and the numerous variables involved, it is often difficult or impossible to fully replicate these conditions in laboratory settings. This is particularly evident when it comes to certain mechanical tests used to characterize endodontic instruments, such as the cyclic fatigue test. This test presents challenging aspects in achieving standardized and comprehensive methodologies for endodontic instruments, as outlined: (a) establishing a universally recognized standard for canal geometry in testing is exceedingly challenging due to the intricate nature of root canals; (b) reproducing instrument-canal contact during fatigue testing is complicated by the presence of dentin on the inner walls of the root canal, unless a real tooth is used. However, in such cases, the validity of test results would be constrained to the specific canal geometry of that particular tooth [5]; (c) choosing the type of irrigation conditions can impact the chemical interactions between liquids and the instrument surface, as well as create a thermal environment that affects the behavior of the metal alloy [3]. As a result, the thermal/chemical environment becomes an additional variable of interest that should be considered. Moreover, the duration of exposure of the instrument to the irrigant can differ significantly, whether it is in a typical clinical intervention (which may take a few seconds) or in a fatigue test (which may take several minutes); (d) the surface finishing of different instruments undeniably plays a significant role in the initiation and propagation of cracks, making it a crucial factor to consider. Given these limitations, reporting test results that focus on a single variable, as is often the case in fatigue tests, may have limited relevance for clinical practitioners and researchers [8,9]. A recent editorial published in the International Endodontic Journal [9] emphasized the redundancy of manuscripts focusing on the fracture susceptibility of NiTi instruments, primarily through torsion or cyclic fatigue tests, as these publications lacked standardized methodologies and comprehensive information. [PERSON] [10] emphasized the researcher's responsibility to ensure that methodologies are current, robust, relevant, and fully justified, stressing the importance of investigating assumptions and validity conditions. To overcome these challenges, a promising approach entails the thoughtful selection of a combination of methodologies. This comprehensive approach enables a deeper understanding of the mechanical, structural, and geometrical characteristics of various instruments, ultimately facilitating the identification of their optimal overall profile.