To compare the effectiveness of ProTaper Universal retreatment instruments with continuous rotation and adaptive motion (AM; a modified reciprocating motion that combines rotational and reciprocating motion) in the removal of filling material.Methodology
Mesiobuccal root canals in 36 mandibular first molars were instrumented up to size F2 with the ProTaper Universal instrument (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and filled using sealer and ProTaper Universal F2 gutta-percha cones. Gutta-percha was then down-packed and the root canal backfilled using the extruder hand-piece of the Elements Obturation System (SybronEndo, Orange, CA, USA). The teeth were assigned to two groups (n = 18), and removal of the root fillings was performed using one of the following techniques: group 1) ProTaper Universal retreatment files used with rotational motion (RM) and group 2) ProTaper Universal retreatment files used with adaptive motion (AM) (600° clockwise/0° counter-clockwise to 370° clockwise/50° counter-clockwise). The teeth were sectioned, and both halves were analysed at 8 × magnification. The percentage of remaining filling material was recorded. The data were analysed statistically using the Student's t-test at a 95% confidence level (P < 0.05).Results
There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the total time required for retreatment (P = 0.481). The AM technique left significantly less filling material than the RM method (P = 0.013).Conclusion
The use of ProTaper Universal retreatment files with adaptive motion removed more filling materials from root canals than the rotational movement.