AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the ProTaper Universal Retreatment™ system and the manual technique for removing a 10-year-old filling material. METHODS: Twenty mesiobuccal canals of mandibular first molars with curvature degrees ranging from 20° to 35° were instrumented by the Double-Flared Instrumentation Technique with the NitiFlex files. The root canals were dried with sterile paper points and filled with gutta-percha and a zinc oxide-eugenol-based sealer using a cold lateral condensation technique. Accesses to the cavities were temporarily sealed with Cavit. The teeth were embedded in gauze containing saline solution, which was renewed every 2 weeks, and were stored at 37 °C in 100% humidity for 10 years. Buccolingual and mesiodistal radiographs were taken to evaluate the quality of the root canal filling. The radiographs were mounted in slide frames to allow them to be evaluated by the three examiners, who were specialists in endodontics. Only the specimens in whom there was agreement between the three evaluators were included in the study. The specimens were divided into 2 groups with 10 root canals each, according to gutta-percha removal techniques: Group 1: ProTaper Universal Retreatment™ system; Group 2: Hedström and K-files. Buccolingual and mesiodistal radiographs were taken and evaluated by three examiners who determined the effectiveness of the removal of the filling material. The presence of material was measured according to a score scale. Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher's exact test at 5% significance level. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences between the two methods in the coronal (P=0.211), and middle (P=0.266) thirds, but there were statistical differences between the two methods in the apical third (P=0.038). CONCLUSION: Not one of the experimental techniques promoted complete removal of the filling materials. The manual technique with K-file and Hedström files achieved better results than the ProTaper Universal Retreatment™ system.