Efficacy of rotary and reciprocating single-file systems on different access outlines for gutta-percha removal in retreatment: An in vitro study.

Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of reciprocating and continuous rotary nickel-titanium instruments during retreatment performed through two different access outlines.

Methodology: A total of 48 freshly extracted mandibular first and second premolars with single root and canal were selected. Initial root canal treatment was completed through a contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) design. Canals were instrumented with F2 ProTaper instrument, obturated with warm lateral condensation of gutta-percha with AH Plus sealer, and allowed to set for 30 days at 37°C and 100% humidity. For retreatment, specimens were divided into two groups ( n = 24) on the basis of access outline, CEC or traditional endodontic cavity. Retreatment was initiated using ProTaper Retreatment instruments (D1-D3). Specimens were further divided ( n = 12) and reinstrumented up to Neoniti 25/0.08 or WaveOne 25/0.08. Irrigation was performed using 3% sodium hypochlorite and 17% ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid. Retreatment time was recorded. Teeth were sectioned and photographed, and the percentage of remaining obturation material was measured.

Results: Data were collected, and statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference multiple post hoc procedures ( P < 0.05).

Conclusion: None of the systems completely removed the root filling material from root canals. However, ProTaper/Neoniti instruments removed more GP when compared to Protaper/WaveOne instruments with both the access outlines. Both the instruments with traditional access outline required less time for removal of obturating material when compared to CEC.