{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02046783625730994, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006578947368421052, 'mean_word_length': 5.139013452914798, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An in vitro study to compare the efficacy of 2 different rotary instruments for GP removal using 2 different sealers

Background: Failure of endodontic treatment may necessitate retreatment by removing gutta percha from root canals. The present study evaluated the efficiency of retreating gutta-percha obturated root canalas with protaper universal retreatment files, NRT GPR retreatment files while using the sealers, AH plus and Endofill for obturation. Materials and Methods: 80 maxillary premolars were decoronated to obtain a standardized root length of 15 mm. Canals were obturated using thermoplasticized gutta percha (GP) with either AH Plus or Endofill as sealer. Teeth were divided into 4 groups, with 20 teeth in each group, and gutta percha removal was done using  (PTUR Protaper universal retreatment), NRT GPR (Nickel titanium gutta percha remover), for studying their efficiency in terms of total operating time and GP remnants left in the canal. Results: The order of efficiency in terms of time and gutta percha (GP) removal was PTUR > NRT GPR. The difference in GP removal was not statistically significant but the time taken for removal was statistically significant. The use of AH Plus sealer showed more remnants than Endofill sealer and the file system followed the same order of efficiency, but the difference was not statistically significant.