Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Compares gutta-percha removal efficiency in teeth using three heat-treated rotary file systems, indicating significant differences in effectiveness.
Aim: This study aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness and residual obturation material following retreatment using three distinct heat-treated rotary file systems. Methods: Forty-five extracted human single-rooted teeth were sectioned to a standardized 18 mm length. Following access preparation, canals were shaped with ProFit S3 rotary instruments up to PF2 (size 25, 6% taper) and obturated with matched-taper gutta-percha cones. The specimens were randomly assigned to three groups ( n = 15) based on the retreatment file system used: Group 1 – Solite RS3, Group 2 – Solite RS3 Black, and Group 3 – Solite RE Black. All procedures were completed by a single operator. The time taken to remove gutta-percha was measured using a stopwatch. Nanocomputed tomography was employed to obtain pre- and postretreatment scans, and volumetric analysis was carried out by superimposing the images. Statistical analysis was conducted using one-way analysis of variance and independent t -tests. Results: The Solite RE Black group exhibited the least volume of residual filling material and required significantly less retreatment time compared to the other groups ( P < 0.05). No notable difference was observed between Solite RS3 and RS3 Black. Conclusion: Solite RE Black outperformed the other file systems in both retreatment efficiency and gutta-percha removal, likely due to its variable taper and enhanced metallurgical design. Solite RS3 and RS3 Black produced comparable results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Swathi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: