Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ex vivo study compares gutta-percha removal efficacy in maxillary and mandibular molars, indicating differing efficiencies.
Objective: This ex vivo study compared the efficacy of Mtwo rotary and Reciproc reciprocating NiTi systems in removing gutta-percha from the mesiobuccal canals of human maxillary and mandibular first molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Ninety mesial roots from extracted maxillary and mandibular firs molars were included. Each root presented a closed apex and a curvature angle of ˂ 20°. The crowns were sectioned at the CEJ, and the canal lenghths were standardized to 12 mm. he canals were prepared and obturated with gutta-percha and AH26 sealer using lateral condensation technique. Samples were randomly assigned to two retreatment groups: Mtwo (multi-file rotary system) and Reciproc (single-file reciprocating system). Gutta-percha removal followed standardized protocols, with CBCT imaging performed pre- and post-retreatment. Residual filling materials were evaluated at 2.5, 5, and 7 mm from the apex. Statistical analysis was conducted using chi-square and Wilcoxon tests. Results: Complete removal of obturation materials was not achieved by either system. Residual material in the Mtwo group was 16.90%, 11.86%, and 7.45% at 2.5, 5, and 7 mm, respectively; in the Reciproc group, it was 24.61%, 19.83%, and 16.24%. No significant differences were observed at 2.5 and 5 mm (P ˃ 0.05), while Mtwo showed superior efficacy at 7 mm (P=0.042). Conclusion: Complete removal of gutta-percha was not achieved in any of the groups. Mtwo was more efficient in gutta- percha removal at 7-mm section. Moreover,the single‑file design of the Reciproc system was associated with procedural simplification
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Razaghi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: