The Comparative Efficacy of Different Files in The Removal of Different Sealers in Simulated Root Canal Retreatment- An In-vitro Study

Introduction: Root canal treatment enjoys a high success rate all over the world and has saved billions of teeth from extraction. However, there are instances of failure, the main causes being insufficient cleaning and inadequate obturation. In such cases the most conservative treatment option would be non-surgical retreatment. It requires regaining access to the entire root canal system through removal of the original root canal filling thus permitting further cleaning and re-obturation. Removal of gutta-percha and sealer becomes a critical step to gain access to the root canal system, remove necrotic tissue debris, bacteria and infected dentin. Aim: To compare and evaluate the efficacy of manual hand Hedstrom files and two rotary retreatment file systems ProTaper Universal retreatment files and Mtwo(R) (retreatment) files in the removal of root canal filling material during root canal retreatment and the influence of the type of sealers zinc oxide eugenol and AH plus on the presence of remaining debris in the reinstrumented canals in the apical, middle and coronal third. Materials and Methods: Sixty single rooted human premolar teeth were divided into 3 Groups of 20 teeth each Group I (20 Teeth): prepared using hand K Files, Group II (20 Teeth): prepared using ProTaper rotary system and Group III (20 Teeth): prepared using Mtwo rotary system. In groups-IA, IIA, IIIA: (10 teeth each) Obturation was done using Zinc Oxide Eugenol sealer and gutta percha. In groups-IB, IIB, IIIB: (10 teeth each) obturation was done with AH Plus sealer and gutta percha. All the teeth were subjected to retreatment. Groups IA and IB with Hedstrom files, Groups IIA and IIB with ProTaper retreatment files and for Groups IIIA and IIIB with Mtwo retreatment Files. The roots were longitudinally split and were observed under a stereomicroscope for remaining amount of filling material on the canal walls. Statistical analysis was done using One-way Anova (Analysis of variance) test and Tukey HSD Test. Results: Mtwo(R) files showed statistically significant difference in the removal of filling material in the apical third and ProTaper R in the coronal and apical thirds. Better cleaning efficacy was seen in canals obturated with zinc oxide eugenol sealer. Mtwo(R) files showed better removal of filling material than ProTaper R followed by Hedstrom files, even though there was no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: None of the instrument group showed complete removal of the filling material. It was easier to remove zinc oxide eugenol sealer than AH plus sealer.