To evaluate and compare the efficacy, cleaning ability of hand and two rotary systems in root canal retreatment.

AIM To evaluate and compare the efficacy, cleaning ability of hand and two rotary systems in root canal retreatment. METHODOLOGY Sixty extracted premolars were retreated with following systems: Group -ProTaper Universal retreatment files, Group 2-ProFile system, Group 3-H-file. Specimens were split longitudinally and amount of remaining gutta-percha on the canal walls was assessed using direct visual scoring with the aid of stereomicroscope. Results were statistically analyzed using ANOVA test. RESULTS Completely clean root canal walls were not achieved with any of the techniques investigated. However, all three systems proved to be effective for gutta-percha removal. Significant difference was found between ProTaper universal retreatment file and H-file, and also between ProFile and H-file. CONCLUSION Under the conditions of the present study, ProTaper Universal retreatment files left significantly less guttapercha and sealer than ProFile and H-file. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Rotary systems in combination with gutta-percha solvents can perform superiorly as compared to the time tested traditional hand instrumentation in root canal retreatment.

[1]  F. Durán‐Sindreu,et al.  Efficacy of three different rotary files to remove gutta-percha and Resilon from root canals. , 2010, International endodontic journal.

[2]  J. Ling,et al.  Efficacy of ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system for gutta-percha removal from root canals. , 2008, International endodontic journal.

[3]  K. Er,et al.  Efficacy of three rotary NiTi instruments in removing gutta-percha from root canals. , 2008, International endodontic journal.

[4]  C. Sabbagh,et al.  Effectiveness of two nickel-titanium rotary instruments and a hand file for removing gutta-percha in severely curved root canals during retreatment: an ex vivo study. , 2007, International endodontic journal.

[5]  S. Al-hadlaq,et al.  Efficacy of two rotary NiTi instruments in the removal of Gutta-Percha during root canal retreatment. , 2007, Journal of endodontics.

[6]  O. Zmener,et al.  Retreatment efficacy of hand versus automated instrumentation in oval-shaped root canals: an ex vivo study. , 2006, International endodontic journal.

[7]  N. Economides,et al.  Ex vivo study of the efficacy of H-files and rotary Ni-Ti instruments to remove gutta-percha and four types of sealer. , 2006, International endodontic journal.

[8]  F. Barletta,et al.  Effectiveness of different techniques for removing gutta-percha during retreatment. , 2005, International endodontic journal.

[9]  M. Hülsmann,et al.  Efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of different rotary NiTi instruments in root canal retreatment. , 2004, International endodontic journal.

[10]  M. Osmak,et al.  The Mutagenic Potential of Chloroform, Orange Oil, Eucalyptus Oil and Halothane by Salmonella/Microsome Assay , 2004 .

[11]  J. Rhodes,et al.  The efficacy of gutta-percha removal using ProFiles. , 2001, International endodontic journal.

[12]  F. Weine,et al.  A comparison of the relative efficacies of four hand and rotary instrumentation techniques during endodontic retreatment. , 2000, International endodontic journal.

[13]  H. L. Lee,et al.  Effectiveness of ProFile .04 taper rotary instruments in endodontic retreatment. , 2000, Journal of endodontics.