Comparing ProFile Vortex to ProTaper Next for the efficacy of removal of root filling material: An ex vivo micro-computed tomography study

AIM: This study compared the efficacy of ProFile Vortex (PV) with that of ProTaper Next (PTN) for the removal of root canal filling material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-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. RESULTS: Both 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 mm(3) and 1.63 ± 0.67 mm(3) of the dentin, respectively (p = .18). CONCLUSION: Our 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.