|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
The purpose of this study was to compare the speed of removal of root canal filling material and re-establishment of apical patency in root canals filled with a tricalcium silicate–based sealer (BioRoot RCS [BRCS]; Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France) versus a zinc oxide–eugenol sealer (Pulp Canal Sealer [PCS]; Sybron Endo Kerr, Orange, CA) and to analyze the effect of the operator’s experience.One hundred twenty root canals of 40 Dentalike dental simulators (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA) were shaped with a WaveOne (Dentsply Sirona) reciprocating file using short 3-mm strokes. Root canals were obturated using a single gutta-percha cone and either BRCS or PCS. Samples treated either with BRCS or PCS were equally dispatched between experienced practitioners and junior practitioners. The time required to remove root filling material and establish apical patency was recorded for each root canal. Samples were compared according to the sealer used and the practitioner’s experience (Mann-Whitney test).One hundred fifteen root canals were successfully retreated. No differences in the time required to remove the filling material were observed between the 2 materials for mesiobuccal or distobuccal canals (P > .05). In contrast, the procedure was longer for palatal canals filled with BRCS compared with PCS (79.10 vs 182.45 seconds, P < .01). Experienced practitioners took significantly less time than junior practitioners (P < .05).BRCS can be successfully removed from root canals as quickly as a zinc oxide–eugenol sealer in both mesiobuccal and distobuccal canals but not in palatal ones. The duration of the procedure was affected by the operator’s experience independent of the filling material used or the canal type.