AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of ProTaper Retreatment files, Mtwo Retreatment files and Twisted Files for removal of gutta-percha and Resilon in straight root canals. METHODOLOGY:Ninety single root canals were instrumented and randomly allocated into 6 groups of 15 specimens each with regards to the filling material and instruments used. Group 1: gutta-percha/ProTaper; Group 2: Resilon/ProTaper; Group 3: gutta-percha/Mtwo; Group 4: Resilon/Mtwo; Group 5: gutta-percha/Twisted Files; Group 6: Resilon/Twisted Files. For all roots, the following data were recorded: procedural errors, duration of retreatment, canal wall cleanliness through optical microscope and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Data were statistically analysed, and the level of significance was set at P=0.05. RESULTS: No system completely removed the root filling material from root canal walls. No significant differences were observed between the rotary systems in terms of the area of filling material left within the canals (P>0.05). There were statistically significant differences between the filling materials: Resilon/Real Seal had less residual material than gutta-percha/AH plus (CBCT: P=0.01; microscope: P=0.018). Mtwo Retreatment files were more rapid when removing filling material than ProTaper Retreatment files (P=0.19) and Twisted Files (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: No system removed the root filling materials entirely. Mtwo Retreatment files required less time to remove root filling material than the other instruments. Resilon was removed significantly better from the canal walls than gutta-percha, irrespective of the rotary instruments used.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of ProTaper Retreatment files, Mtwo Retreatment files and Twisted Files for removal of gutta-percha and Resilon in straight root canals. METHODOLOGY: Ninety single root canals were instrumented and randomly allocated into 6 groups of 15 specimens each with regards to the filling material and instruments used. Group 1: gutta-percha/ProTaper; Group 2: Resilon/ProTaper; Group 3: gutta-percha/Mtwo; Group 4: Resilon/Mtwo; Group 5: gutta-percha/Twisted Files; Group 6: Resilon/Twisted Files. For all roots, the following data were recorded: procedural errors, duration of retreatment, canal wall cleanliness through optical microscope and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Data were statistically analysed, and the level of significance was set at P=0.05. RESULTS: No system completely removed the root filling material from root canal walls. No significant differences were observed between the rotary systems in terms of the area of filling material left within the canals (P>0.05). There were statistically significant differences between the filling materials: Resilon/Real Seal had less residual material than gutta-percha/AH plus (CBCT: P=0.01; microscope: P=0.018). Mtwo Retreatment files were more rapid when removing filling material than ProTaper Retreatment files (P=0.19) and Twisted Files (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: No system removed the root filling materials entirely. Mtwo Retreatment files required less time to remove root filling material than the other instruments. Resilon was removed significantly better from the canal walls than gutta-percha, irrespective of the rotary instruments used.