INTRODUCTION: The aim of this ex vivo study was to evaluate the removal of filling material after using CM-wire, M-wire, and nickel-titanium instruments in both reciprocating and rotary motions in curved canals. METHODS: Thirty maxillary lateral incisors were divided into 9 groups according to retreatment procedures: Reciproc R25 followed by Mtwo 40/.04 and ProDesign Logic 50/.01 files; ProDesign R 25/.06 followed by ProDesign Logic 40/.05 and ProDesign Logic 50/.01 files; and Gates-Glidden drills, Hedström files, and K-files up to apical size 30 followed by K-file 40 and K-file 50 up to the working length. Micro-computed tomography scans were performed before and after each reinstrumentation procedure to evaluate root canal filling removal. Statistical analysis was performed with Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman, and Wilcoxon tests (P < .05). RESULTS: No significant differences in filling material removal were found in the 3 groups of teeth. The use of Mtwo and ProDesign Logic 40/.05 rotary files did not enhance filling material removal after the use of reciprocating files. The use of ProDesign Logic 50/.01 files significantly reduced the amount of filling material at the apical levels compared with the use of reciprocating files. CONCLUSIONS: Association of reciprocating and rotary files was capable of removing a large amount of filling material in the retreatment of curved canals, irrespective of the type of alloy of the instruments. The use of a ProDesign Logic 50/.01 file for apical preparation significantly reduced the amount of remnant material in the apical portion when compared with reciprocating instruments.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this ex vivo study was to evaluate the removal of filling material after using CM-wire, M-wire, and nickel-titanium instruments in both reciprocating and rotary motions in curved canals. METHODS: Thirty maxillary lateral incisors were divided into 9 groups according to retreatment procedures: Reciproc R25 followed by Mtwo 40/.04 and ProDesign Logic 50/.01 files; ProDesign R 25/.06 followed by ProDesign Logic 40/.05 and ProDesign Logic 50/.01 files; and Gates-Glidden drills, Hedström files, and K-files up to apical size 30 followed by K-file 40 and K-file 50 up to the working length. Micro-computed tomography scans were performed before and after each reinstrumentation procedure to evaluate root canal filling removal. Statistical analysis was performed with Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman, and Wilcoxon tests (P < .05). RESULTS: No significant differences in filling material removal were found in the 3 groups of teeth. The use of Mtwo and ProDesign Logic 40/.05 rotary files did not enhance filling material removal after the use of reciprocating files. The use of ProDesign Logic 50/.01 files significantly reduced the amount of filling material at the apical levels compared with the use of reciprocating files. CONCLUSIONS: Association of reciprocating and rotary files was capable of removing a large amount of filling material in the retreatment of curved canals, irrespective of the type of alloy of the instruments. The use of a ProDesign Logic 50/.01 file for apical preparation significantly reduced the amount of remnant material in the apical portion when compared with reciprocating instruments.