Aim of the study: The aim of the present study is to compare between Reciprocating file (Reciproc Blue) and rotating files (Protaper Universal Retreatment System) in retreatment of endodontically treated teeth concerning: 1. Removal of obturating material. 2. Surface changes of the File. Material and Method: 32 single-rooted human maxillary central incisors were collected. The specimens were randomly allocated into two groups, 16 teeth decoronated and retreated by ReciprocBlue file, 16 teeth decoronated and retreated by ProTaper Universal Retreatment files. The selected teeth were decoronated using diamond disc to standardize the working length to 15 mm for each specimen. Root canal of each tooth was slightly dried with paper points #40 and obturated with cold lateral. Technique: Specimens randomly divided into two experimental groups, with 16 specimens each, retreatment performed using two different Rotary systems without using Gutta-percha solvent. Canals were irrigated in all the specimens with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite during obturation material removal. The obturation removal done using one of the following systems: Group1: Reciproc Blue one file shaping, Group 2: ProTaper Universal Retreatment Ni–Ti rotary. Results: No examined retreatment technology can completely remove root canal obturation material, particularly at the apical third. The ProTaper Retreatment Rotary Instruments remove somewhat more obturation material as compared to reciproc blue. Reciproc blue files had a higher percentage of fractures and cracks compared to PTUR files. Conclusion: Continuous rotation is somewhat more effective and efficient than reciprocating motion. Instrument failure can be influenced by several parameters such as speed, force, kinematics, and torque values. Reciproc blue files had a higher percentage of fractures and cracks compared to PTUR files.