The Effectiveness of Manual and Mechanical Instrumentation for the Retreatment of Three Different Root Canal Filling Materials

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Mtwo R (Sweden & Martina, Padova, Italy), ProTaper retreatment files (Dentsply-Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and a Hedström manual technique in the removal of three different filling materials (gutta-percha, Resilon [Resilon Research LLC, Madison, CT], and EndoRez [Ultradent Products Inc, South Jordan, UT]) during retreatment. Ninety single-rooted straight premolars were instrumented and randomly divided into 9 groups of 10 teeth each (n = 10) with regards to filling material and instrument used. For all roots, the following data were recorded: procedural errors, time of retreatment, apically extruded material, canal wall cleanliness through optical stereomicroscopy (OSM), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A linear regression analysis and three logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the level of significance set at p = 0.05. The results indicated that the overall regression models were statistically significant. The Mtwo R, ProTaper retreatment files, and Resilon filling material had a positive impact in reducing the time for retreatment. Both ProTaper retreatment files and Mtwo R showed a greater extrusion of debris. For both OSM and SEM logistic regression models, the root canal apical third had the greatest impact on the score values. EndoRez filling material resulted in cleaner root canal walls using OSM analysis, whereas Resilon filling material and both engine-driven NiTi rotary techniques resulted in less clean root canal walls according to SEM analysis. In conclusion, all instruments left remnants of filling material and debris on the root canal walls irrespective of the root filling material used. Both the engine-driven NiTi rotary systems proved to be safe and fast devices for the removal of endodontic filling material.