Abstract
AimThis study compared the efficacy of ProFile Vortex (PV) with that of ProTaper Next (PTN) for the removal of root canal filling material.Materials and methodsTwenty-six mesial canals of extracted mandibular first molars were instrumented, obturated with gutta-percha and sealant, and randomly allocated to a PTN (X3, X2, or X1) or PV group. The percentage of remaining material, amount of dentin removed, and extent of transportation were assessed using micro-computed tomography. The total time required for removal of material was calculated.ResultsBoth systems were effective for material removal (p ≤ 0.001). Less time was required to remove material using PV (256.43 ± 108.95 s) than using PTN (333.31 ± 81.63 s; p ≤ 0.05). PV and PTN files removed approximately 84% and 78% of the filling material, respectively (p > .05). There was no significant canal transportation in either group. PV and PTN files removed 1.32 ± 0.48 mm3 and 1.63 ± 0.67 mm3 of the dentin, respectively (p = .18).ConclusionOur findings suggest that PV is as effective as PTN for removal of root canal filling material. Therefore, PV can be considered for use in endodontic retreatment, although more effective files or techniques are still required.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
