RESUMEN
Introduction: The present study aimed to evaluate the amount of residual material after retreatment of propoint (DRFP Ltd. Stamford, UK) and gutta-percha obturated using smart paste bio sealer (DRFP Ltd. Stamford, UK), considering gutta-percha and AH Plus (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) as the standard for comparison. Methods: Forty five single rooted teeth were instrumented using rotary files (F3, Protaper, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Obturation was done with three different materials (n=15); group 1, Propoint with smart paste bio, group 2, gutta-percha with smart paste bio and group 3, gutta-percha with AH Plus. Teeth were scanned by cone beam computed tomography to measure the volume of obturation material. After three months of storage, retreatment was performed (Protaper universal rotary retreatment files, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Second scan of cone beam computed tomography was taken to evaluate the residual filling material. Group comparisons were performed using one way ANOVA and Post-Hoc Tukey test HSD test (P=0.05). Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups (P<.05), in the residual filling material. Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that the obturation material could not be removed completely in all the three groups. There was no significant difference in the retreatment efficacy between propoint and gutta-percha.