MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty mandibular premolar teeth having a single root and root canal that were recently extracted were gathered and stored. The specimens were de-coronated at the cementoenamel junction under water irrigation to achieve a homogeneous root length of 16 millimeters. Gutta-percha cones were coated with sealants and placed within the radicular canal till the WL. All sixty premolars were randomly assigned to one of the following three groups, with every group comprising 20 sample teeth each. Group 1: MTwo Retreatment files, Group 2: ProTaper Universal Retreatment files, Group 3: Edge File XR Retreatment rotary files. The quantity of root dentinal injury was estimated by deducting the dentin volume (mm3) in the pre- and post-therapy micro-CT scans at apical, middle, and cervical 3rd points.

RESULTS: An intra-group comparative scrutiny showed that lower radicular dentinal injury was noted at apical 3rd (0.31 ± 0.16, 0.62 ± 0.02) in Edge File XR Retreatment file system and MTwo Retreatment file system in that order. The statistically significant disparity was seen amid the MTwo Retreatment file, Edge File XR Retreatment file system and ProTaper Universal Retreatment file, Edge File XR Retreatment file system with P value of 0.001on intergroup assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: To prepare a total of 90 acrylic resin samples (45 acrylic resin samples for each material), four rectangular stainless-steel plates measuring 25 × 25 × 10 mm were fabricated. For both groups, the material was put into the mold at the dough stage. Group I - SR Triplex Hot Heat Cure acrylic; group II - DPI Heat Cure acrylic. Both groups used the same curing procedure. One of the following three techniques was used to cool the material (15 samples from each material) once the curing cycle was finished: (A) water bath, (b) quenching, and (C) air. A traveling microscope was used to measure the distance between the markings on the acrylic samples. The data was recorded and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS: In SR Triplex Hot heat cure acrylic material, the maximum linear dimensional changes were found in the quenching technique (0.242 ± 0.05), followed by the air technique (0.168 ± 0.11) and the least was found in the water bath technique (0.146 ± 0.01). In DPI Heat Cure acrylic material, the maximum linear dimensional changes were found in the quenching technique (0.284 ± 0.09), followed by the air technique (0.172 ± 0.18) and the least was found in the water bath technique (0.158 ± 0.10). There was a statistically significant difference found between these three cooling techniques. On comparison of adaptability, the water bath technique, the marginal gap SR Triplex Hot was 0.012 ± 0.02 and DPI Heat Cure was 0.013 ± 0.02. In the quenching technique, the marginal gap SR Triplex Hot was 0.019 ± 0.04 and DPI Heat Cure was 0.016 ± 0.04. In the air technique, the marginal gap SR Triplex Hot was 0.017 ± 0.01 and DPI Heat Cure was 0.019 ± 0.01.

CONCLUSION: The present study concluded that among the different cooling methods, the water bath technique had the least linear dimensional change, followed by the air and quenching techniques. When comparing the materials, DPI Heat Cure acrylic resin showed a greater linear dimensional change than SR Triplex Hot heat cure acrylic resin.