AbstractAimThere are currently no high‐quality studies comparing the static navigation technique with conventional methods of fibre post removal. The aim of this ex vivo study was to compare the effectiveness of fibre post removal between a static navigation technique and a conventional freehand technique using ultrasonics by experienced and inexperienced operators.MethodologyForty‐eight extracted single‐rooted human premolars were root‐filled. A fibre post was cemented in all 48 teeth, which were then divided randomly into the following groups: static navigation group using burs; static navigation‐ultrasonic group; and non‐guided group using ultrasonic tips. The following parameters were evaluated for both experienced operators and inexperienced operators: reaching the gutta‐percha root filling successfully, the time required to remove the entire post, the occurrence of lateral root perforations, and the amount of root dentine removed. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to examine the normality of the data; the anova test was used to compare the significant differences among groups; and Tukey tests were used for all two‐by‐two comparisons. The significance level was set at 0.05.ResultsIn the static navigation group, the gutta‐percha was reached significantly more frequently than in the non‐guided group (p < .05). The static navigation approach required significantly less time than the non‐guided approach to reach the gutta‐percha (p < .05). The total removal of posts was significantly different between groups (p < .05), but there was no significant difference between experienced and inexperienced operators in the static navigation group (p > .05). More perforations were associated with the non‐guided group than with the other two groups. The total mean loss of dentine in the non‐guided group in all directions was 0.39 (±0.17) mm, with 0.25 (±0.09) mm for experienced, and 0.42 (±0.16) mm for inexperienced operators.ConclusionWhen compared to a conventional ultrasonic technique for the removal of fibre posts, the static navigation method using burs resulted in less dentine removal, more rapid access to the gutta‐percha root filling, less overall time to remove the posts, and fewer complications. When using static navigation, there was no difference in performance between experienced and inexperienced operators.