In this study, we compared the ex vivo removal capacity of two endodontic rotary techniques and determined whether there was a significant quantitative difference in residual material when comparing root thirds. Forty extracted molars were used. The palatal roots were selected, and the canals were prepared using a step-back technique and filled using a lateral condensation technique with gutta-percha points and Endofill sealer. After two weeks of storage in a 0.9% saline solution at 37ºC in an oven, the specimens were divided into 2 groups of 20, with group 1 samples subjected to Gates-Glidden drills and group 2 samples subjected to the ProTaper retreatment System. Hedstroem files and eucalyptol solvent were used in both groups to complete the removal procedure. Then, the roots thirds were radiographed and the images were submitted to the NIH ImageJ program to measure the residual filling material in mm. Each root third was related to the total area of the root canals. The data were analyzed using Student's t test. There was a statistically significant difference between the two techniques as more filling material was removed by technique 2 (ProTaper) than technique 1 (Gates-Glidden drills, p < 0.05). The apical third had a greater amount of residual filling material than the cervical and middle thirds, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). None of the selected techniques removed all filling material, and the material was most difficult to remove from the apical third. The ProTaper files removed more material than the Gates-Glidden drills

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) the removal of smear layer from the middle and apical root thirds after use of different irrigating solutions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty roots of permanent human teeth had their canals instrumented and were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n=10), according to the irrigating solution: apple vinegar (group A), apple vinegar finished with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (group B), 1% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) finished with 17% EDTA (group C) and saline (group D - control). After chemomechanical preparation, the roots were cleaved longitudinally and their middle and apical thirds were examined by SEM at ×1,000 magnification. Two calibrated examiners (kappa=0.92) analyzed the SEM micrographs qualitatively attributing scores that indicated the efficacy of the solutions in removing the smear layer from the surface of the dentin tubules (1 - poor, 2 - good and 3 - excellent). Data from the control and experimental groups were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's test, while the Wilcoxon test was used to compare the middle and apical thirds of the canals within the same group (a=0.05). RESULTS: The middle third presented less amount of smear layer than the apical third, regardless of the irrigant. There was statistically significant difference (p=0.0402) among the groups in the middle third. In the apical third, the apple vinegar/EDTA group showed the greatest removal of smear layer (p=0.0373). CONCLUSION: Apple vinegar associated or not with EDTA was effective in removing smear layer when used as an endodontic irrigant.