The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of TRUShape (TS) instruments with ProFile Vortex Blue (VB) instruments for the removal of obturation materials during retreatment of single-canal mandibular premolars performed through 2 access outlines.Methods
Initial root canal treatment was completed through a contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) design. Canals were instrumented to an 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 2 groups (n = 24) on the basis of access outline, CEC or traditional endodontic cavity (TEC). Retreatment was initiated by using ProTaper Retreatment instruments (D1–D3). Specimens were then stratified, further divided (n = 12), and reinstrumented up to TS 40 .06v or 40 .06 VB. Irrigation was performed by using 8.25% NaOCl and QMix 2in1. Retreatment time was recorded. Teeth were sectioned and photographed, and the percentage of remaining obturation materials was measured. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for two-factor tests (α < 0.05).Results
The interaction between access design and instrument type showed that the combination of CEC-VB presented significantly higher amounts of remaining obturation materials on the canal surface when compared with TEC-VB, CEC-TS, and TEC-TS (P ≤ .05). None of these other combinations were different from each other (P > .05). Significantly more time was required for retreatment with CEC-TS (27.68 ± 1.4 minutes) than the other groups (P < .05).Conclusions
Neither retreatment protocol was able to completely eliminate all obturation materials from the root canal surface of mandibular premolars. However, in the presence of a CEC access design, using TS instruments removed more obturating material in single-rooted, oval-shaped canals.