The purpose of this study was to evaluate the apical fitness of non-standardized gutta-percha cones in root canals prepared with rotary Ni-Ti root canal instruments of various tapers and apical tip sizes. Simulated sixty curved root canals of plastic blocks were prepared with crown-down technique using rotary root canal instruments of Maillefer ProFile$^{(R)}$ .04 and .06 taper (Maillefer Instrument SA, Switzerland). Specimens were divided into six groups and prepared as follows: Group 1, prepared up to size 25 of .04 taper ; Group 2, prepared up to size 30 of .04 taper ; Group 3, prepared up to size 35 of .04 taper ; Group 4, prepared up to size 25 of .06 taper ; Group 5, prepared up to size 30 of .06 taper ; Group 6 ; prepared up to size 35 of .06 taper. After cutting off the coronal portion of plastic, blocks perpendicular to the long axis of the canal with the use of a diamond saw, apical 5mm of canal space was analyzed. Prepared apical canal spaces were duplicated using rubber base impression material to evaluate two dimensional total area of apical canal space. Various sized gutta-percha cones were applied in the 5mm-apical canal space, which were size 25, size 30 and size 35 standardized gutta-percha cone, Diadent Dia-Pro ISO-.04$^{TM}$ and .06$^{TM}$(Diadent, Korea), and medium-fine (MF), fine (F), fine-medium (FM) and medium (M) sized non-standardized gutta-percha cones (Diadent, Korea). Coronal excess gutta-percha were cut off with a sharp blade. Photographs of impressed apical canal spaces and gutta-percha cones were taken with a CCD camera under a stereomicroscope and stored in a computer. Areas of the total canal space and gutta-percha cones were calculated using a digitalized image analysing program, CompuScope (Sungjin Multimedia Co., Korea). Ratio of apical fitness was obtained by calculating the area of gutta-percha cone to the total area of the canal space. The data were analysed statistically using One-way Analysis of Variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. The results were as follows: 1. In canals prepared up to size 25 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .04 taper, non-standardized MF and F cones occupied significantly more canal space than Dia-Pro ISO-.04$^{TM}$ or size 25 standardized ones (p<0.05). 2. In canals prepared up to size 30 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .04 taper, non-standardized F cones occupied significantly more canal space than Dia-Pro ISO-.04$^{TM}$ or size 30 standardized ones (p<0.05), and non-standardized MF cones occupied more canal space than size 30 standardized ones (p<0.05). 3. In canals prepared up to size 35 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .04 taper, there was no significant difference in canal space occupation among non-standardized MF and F, size 35 standardized, and Dia-Pro ISO-.04$^{TM}$ cones (p>0.05). 4. In canals prepared up to size 25 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .06 taper, non-standardized MF and F cones occupied significantly more canal space than Dia-Pro ISO-.06$^{TM}$, or size 25 standardized ones (p<0.05), and Dia-Pro ISO-.06$^{TM}$, cones occupied significantly more space than size 25 standardized ones (p<0.05). 5. In canals prepared up to size 30 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .06 taper, non-standardized FM cones occupied significantly more canal space than Dia-Pro ISO-.06$^{TM}$ or size 30 standardized ones (p<0.05), and non-standardized F cones occupied significantly more canal space than size 30 standardized ones (p<0.05). 6. In canals prepared up to size 35 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .06 taper, non-standardized M and FM, Dia-Pro ISO-.06$^{TM}$ occupied significantly more canal space than size 35 standardized ones (p<0.05). In summary, in both canals prepared with .04 or .06 taper ProFile$^{(R)}$, non-standardized cones showed better fitness than Dia-Pro ISO$^{TM}$ or standardized ones, which was more characteristic in smaller canals.