Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(04): 626-633
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714762
Original Article

Debris and Smear Layer Removal from Oval Root Canals Comparing XP-Endo Finisher, EndoActivator, and Manual Irrigation: A SEM Evaluation

Asmaa Alakshar
1   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
,
Abdul Rahman Mohammed Saleh
2   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
,
Mehmet Omer Gorduysus
3   Preventive and Restorative Dentistry Department, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to assess and compare XP-Endo Finisher (XP) cleaning efficiency with respect to the amount of remaining debris and smear layer versus Max-I-Probe needle (CI), EndoActivator device (EA), and combination of XP-Endo Finisher file with EndoActivator device (XP+EA) in oval root canals.

Materials and Methods This in vitro study was performed on 36 extracted single root/canal mandibular premolars. Radiographic images were taken in buccolingual and mesiodistal projections to evaluate the shape of the root canal and determine whether it met exclusion criteria. All teeth were decoronated and prepared using Reciproc (R40). The samples were divided randomly into four groups: CI, EA, XP, and XP + EA. The root canals were irrigated with 5 mL of 17% EDTA and 2.5% NaOCl, respectively. Apart from the CI group, both solutions were activated by using the tested techniques for 1 minute.

The teeth were split longitudinally, and the best visible identified sections of the roots were used as the representing samples for scanning electron microscope (SEM) evaluation. Each half was divided into the following three parts: 1 mm from the anatomic apex and a standardized photomicrograph with 500x and 1500x magnifications for debris and smear layer were obtained. A five-grade scoring system was utilized to quantify the results at the coronal, middle, and apical regions. Statistical analysis was performed by using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests.

Results Group differences in debris and smear layer scores were found statistically significant for all locations as well as for overall assessment, except for the coronal third. Intragroup comparison of debris and smear layer in CI, EA, and XP had the minimum score at the middle third, with no significant difference compared with the coronal and apical thirds. XP + EA had less debris and smear layer score at the coronal third, significantly different from apical third.

CI and EA had less debris and smear layer compared with XP and XP + EA at all locations with a significant difference at the middle and apical third (p < 0.05).

Conclusion EA and CI showed less debris and smear layer than XP and XP + EA in the middle and apical third. The use of the XP in conjunction with the present irrigation protocol failed to have debris-free dentin surface in the apical portion of most of the root canals.

Keywords

smear layer - irrigation protocol - Scanning Electrical Microscope - EndoActivator - XP-Endo Finisher


Publication History

Article published online:
10 August 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Wu MK, R’oris A, Barkis D, Wesselink PR. Prevalence and extent of long oval canals in the apical third. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 89 (06) 739-743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rödig T, Hülsmann M, Mühge M, Schäfers F. Quality of preparation of oval distal root canals in mandibular molars using nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J 2002; 35 (11) 919-928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Metzger Z, Teperovich E, Cohen R, Zary R, Paqué F, Hülsmann M. The self-adjusting file (SAF). Part 3: removal of debris and smear layer-A scanning electron microscope study. J Endod 2010; 36 (04) 697-702
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Paqué F, Laib A, Gautschi H, Zehnder M. Hard-tissue debris accumulation analysis by high-resolution computed tomography scans. J Endod 2009; 35 (07) 1044-1047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 De-Deus G, Reis C, Beznos D. de Abranches AM, Coutinho-Filho T, Paciornik S. Limited ability of three commonly used thermoplasticized gutta-percha techniques in filling oval-shaped canals. J Endod 2008; 34 (11) 1401-1405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jou YT, Karabucak B, Levin J, Liu D. Endodontic working width: current concepts and techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2004; 48 (01) 323-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Boutsioukis C, Lambrianidis T, Verhaagen B. et al. The effect of needle-insertion depth on the irrigant flow in the root canal: evaluation using an unsteady computational fluid dynamics model. J Endod 2010; 36 (10) 1664-1668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Caron G, Nham K, Bronnec F, Machtou P. Effectiveness of different final irrigant activation protocols on smear layer removal in curved canals. J Endod 2010; 36 (08) 1361-1366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lui JN, Kuah HG, Chen NN. Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod 2007; 33 (04) 472-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hülsmann M, Rümmelin C, Schäfers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. J Endod 1997; 23 (05) 301-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 FKG. XP-endo Finisher Technical Guide. Available at http://www.fkg.ch/sites/default/files/fkg_xp_endo_brochure_en_vb.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2019
  • 12 Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32 (02) 271-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Singh N, Chandra A, Tikku AP, Verma P. A comparative evaluation of different irrigation activation systems on smear layer removal from root canal: An in-vitro scanning electron microscope study. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17 (02) 159-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Shen Y, Stojicic S, Haapasalo M. Antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine against bacteria in biofilms at different stages of development. J Endod 2011; 37 (05) 657-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lottanti S, Gautschi H, Sener B, Zehnder M. Effects of ethylenediaminetetraacetic, etidronic and peracetic acid irrigation on human root dentine and the smear layer. Int Endod J 2009; 42 (04) 335-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Tay FR, Gu L-S, Schőeffel GJ. et al. Effect of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side-vented needle for positive-pressure irrigant delivery. J Endod 2010; 36 (04) 745-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Azimian S, Bakhtiar H, Azimi S, Esnaashari E. In vitro effect of XP-Endo finisher on the amount of residual debris and smear layer on the root canal walls. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2019; 16 (03) 179-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Silva EJNL, Belladonna FG, Zuolo AS. et al. Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher and XP-endo Finisher R in removing root filling remnants: a micro-CT study. Int Endod J 2018; 51 (01) 86-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. The antibacterial action of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA in 60 cases of endodontic therapy. Int Endod J 1985; 18 (01) 35-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Heard F, Walton RE. Scanning electron microscope study comparing four root canal preparation techniques in small curved canals. Int Endod J 1997; 30 (05) 323-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod 2013; 39 (11) 1456-1460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Živković S, Nešković J, Jovanović-Medojević M, Popović-Bajić M, Živković-Sandić M. XP-endo Finisher: a new solution for smear layer removal. Serbian Dental J. 2015; 62 (03) 122-129
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Elnaghy AM, Mandorah A, Elsaka SE. Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher, EndoActivator, and File agitation on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a comparative study. Odontology 2017; 105 (02) 178-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Abdulhady Y, Refai A, Sharaan M. Cleanliness of combining Xp-endo Finisher file and passive ultrasonic irriagation: an SEM study. Endod Pract 2018; 12 (04) 257-264
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Slavoljub Ž, Jelena N, Milica J, Marijana P, Marija Ž. XP-endo Finisher: a new solution for smear layer removal. Serbian Dent J. 2015; 62 (03) 122-126
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ruddle CJ. Endodontic disinfection: tsunami irrigation. Saudi Endod J 2015; 5 (01) 1-12
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Al-Jadaa A, Paqué F, Attin T, Zehnder M. Acoustic hypochlorite activation in simulated curved canals. J Endod 2009; 35 (10) 1408-1411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod 2006; 32 (05) 389-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rödig T, Hülsmann M, Kahlmeier C. Comparison of root canal preparation with two rotary NiTi instruments: ProFile. 04 and GT Rotary. Int Endod J 2007; 40 (07) 553-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hauser V, Braun A, Frentzen M. Penetration depth of a dye marker into dentine using a novel hydrodynamic system (RinsEndo). Int Endod J 2007; 40 (08) 644-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sedgley CM, Nagel AC, Hall D, Applegate B. Influence of irrigant needle depth in removing bioluminescent bacteria inoculated into instrumented root canals using real-time imaging in vitro. Int Endod J 2005; 38 (02) 97-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Uroz-Torres D, González-Rodríguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. Effectiveness of the EndoActivator System in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. J Endod 2010; 36 (02) 308-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 de Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, Heilborn C, Cohenca N. Effect of EDTA, sonic, and ultrasonic activation on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals: an in vitro study. J Endod 2009; 35 (06) 891-895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod 2009; 35 (06) 791-804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Leoni GB, Versiani MA, Silva-Sousa YT, Bruniera JF, Pécora JD, Sousa-Neto MD. Ex vivo evaluation of four final irrigation protocols on the removal of hard-tissue debris from the mesial root canal system of mandibular first molars. Int Endod J 2017; 50 (04) 398-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 De-Dues G, Belladonna FC, Zuolo AD. et al. Micro-CT comparison of XP-endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation as final irrigation protocols on the removal of accumulated hard-debris from oval shaped canals Clinical oral investigations. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (07) 3087-3093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Siqueira Jr JF, Araújo MC, Garcia PF, Fraga RC, Dantas CJ. Histological evaluation of the effectiveness of five instrumentation techniques for cleaning the apical third of root canals. J Endod 1997; 23 (08) 499-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Bao P, Shen Y, Lin J, Haapasalo M. In vitro efficacy of XP-Endo Finisher with 2 different protocols on biofilm removal from apical root canals. J Endod 2017; 43 (02) 321-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar