Background After endodontic surgery, radiographic assessment is the method of choice to monitor healing of bone defects. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans are useful to identify the cause of failure of surgical intervention or to confirm healing; however, the artifacts generated by some root-end filling material might compromise this objective. Objective To compare the artifact generated by 4 root-end filling materials at 2 slice acquisition settings—180 and 360 degrees. Hypothesis: Irrespective of the material used, artifacts generated with a 360-degree acquisition will be less than the artifacts generated by a 180-degree acquisition. Materials and Methods Twelve central incisors were endodontically treated, obturated, and then retrograde filled by using amalgam, Biodentine, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and super–ethoxy benzoic acid (Super-EBA) (3 of each). A phantom was created; then, tooth samples were inserted and scanned in the center of a 4 × 4 mm field of view (FOV) by using a Morita MCT-1 F8 set at 90kV. Two scan mode settings were used (360 and 180 degrees), the volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) was registered, and the effective dose was calculated. Images were analyzed by using the Image J software to calculate the artifact generated. Results At 90kV, there was a statistically significant decrease in artifact generated by 360-degree scans versus the 180-degree scans regardless of material used (P value = .0001). Furthermore, amalgam generated a statistically significant increase in artifact compared with the other materials (P value Discussion Use of the 360-degree image slice acquisition mode generated significantly less artifact than the 180-degree setting for all materials; also, Biodentine, MTA, and super-EBA are biomechanically adequate for retrograde obturation because they generated significantly less artifact compared with amalgam. However, because exposure is nearly doubled by doubling image slice acquisition, further investigation at lower kV settings is prudent to find a lower dose alternative with similar statistically significant results.