Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of ProTaper Next (PTN), ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTR) and hybrid instrumentation (HI) for canal filling removal on the fracture resistance (FR), mode of failure (MoF), and filling removal time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six, mandibular premolars were decoronated and randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 16), as follows: sound (S), untreated canals; prepared teeth (P), canals only prepared to ProTaper Universal finishing instrument (F4); endodontically-treated (ET), prepared and obturated canals using the single-cone technique; and groups PTN, PTR, and HI where filling was removed using PTN, PTR, or HI respectively. FR under vertical loading; MoF and time were assessed. Data were analyzed (Significance level [α] = 0.05). RESULTS: There was a significant difference in FR among all groups (p < 0.001) (HI < P < PTN < S < ET < PTR). HI showed lower FR than S, ET and PTR, and P showed lower FR than PTR (p < 0.05). For experimental groups, there was a significant difference between every group pair (p < 0.05) No significant difference was found regarding MoF distribution (p > 0.05). HI required the highest filling removal time, while PTR required the least (p < 0.05 between every group pair). CONCLUSIONS: The effect of filling removal on FR may depend on the filling removal technique/system used. PTR could be faster and protect against fracture followed by PTN; HI could adversely affect FR. FR may be associated with filling removal time.