Comparative evaluation of retreatability of bioceramic sealer (BioRoot RCS) and epoxy resin (AH Plus) sealer with two different retreatment files: An in vitro study.

Abstract

Aim:The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the retreatability of BioRoot RCS and AH Plus sealer with two different retreatment file systems using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for assessing the filling remnants.Materials and Methods:A total of sixty mandibular premolars with single and oval root canals were prepared till size F3 and obturated with GP/AH Plus (Group 1) and GP/BioRoot RCS (Group 2). Canals were then retreated using two different retreatment file systems – ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTUR) system and NeoEndo Retreatment system. The ability to re-establish working length (WL) and apical patency was recorded, and the percentage volume of residual filling material was evaluated using CBCT at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds. Data from the study were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance with Pearson's Chi-squared analysis and the Kruskal–Wallis test.Results:No statistically significant difference was found in the amount of residual sealer (AH Plus and BioRoot RCS) after retreatment throughout the whole study (P > 0.05) at various root canal levels. Furthermore, the BioRoot RCS group retreated with the PTUR system showed a higher frequency of failure in re-establishing WL and regaining apical patency than the other groups.Conclusion:Complete removal of root canal sealers could not be achieved regardless of the type of sealer used and the retreatment technique employed. Furthermore, in clinical settings, the retreatability of novel BioRoot RCS may be deemed feasible.