This study intended: to assess use cone-beam analysis‏ of gutta percha removal by Reciproc versus ProTaper Universal retreatment systems. Methods: Thirty extracted humanoid lower first molars were collected. The mesiobuccal canal was selected from each tooth. The mesiobuccal canals were mechanically prepared in a crown-down approach using the “TF Adaptive" setting on Elements Motor. TF Adaptive Green ML1 file (Medium Large) and Yellow ML2 size 35 taper 4% till the file gets to the effective length. the obturation was done by lateral condensation technique with gutta pearch size 35 taper 6%, and AH plus in the same visit, and using gutta pearch size 25 taper 2% as auxiliary cones with spreader size 25. samples were unintentionally split into two investigational groups concurring to the re-treatment method used (n = 15). Group I: Reciproc system, and Group II: ProTaper Universal re-treatment. Cone beam (CBCT) was used to evaluate the gutta percha removal in both groups. Results: less remaining filling material following the wastage of the Reciproc system (0.169mm3) followed by the ProTaper Universal retreatment (1.459 mm3). There was less remaining filling material following the use of the Reciproc system (The rate of decrease was 96.82 %) followed by the ProTaper Universal re-treatment kit (The rate of decrease was 76.17 %). Conclusions: Reciproc was more effective than Protaper Universal files in the elimination of gutta‐percha and epoxy resin‐based sealer during the re-treatment.