In vitro effect of XP-Endo finisher on the amount of residual debris and smear layer on the root canal walls

The Effect of Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation and XP-Endo Finisher on Post-operative Pain after Endodontic Retreatment on Patients (Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)

AIM: To evaluate the effect of passive ultrasonic irrigation or XP-Endo Finisher on postoperative pain in patients with underextended filling in previously endodontically treated mandibular first molar teeth requiring endodontic retreatment using visual analog scale (VAS) scale at 6, 12, 24, 48, 72 h, and 7 daytime intervals. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients with mandibular first molars which need endodontic retreatment were randomly allocated into one of three separate groups (n = 26); NaviTip group (control), XP-Endo Finisher group, or Ultra X group. Data were statistically analyzed with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: XP-Endo Finisher agitation and ultrasonic agitation as a final irrigation protocol showed significantly lower pain values than the control group, but there was no significant difference in pain values between the experimental groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of this study, it can be concluded that agitation techniques used during endodontic retreatment decreased the incidence and intensity of post-operative pain.

The Effect of Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation or XP-Endo Finisher on Post-Operative Pain in Patients with Necrotic Teeth with Apical Periodontitis (Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial)

Objective To evaluate the effect of passive ultrasonic irrigation or XP-Endo Finisher on post-operative pain in patients with necrotic teeth with apical periodontitis using (VAS) scale at 6, 12, 24, 48, 72 hours, and 7 day time intervals. Methods Seventy-eight patients diagnosed with necrotic mandibular first molar with symptomatic apical periodontitis were randomly allocated into 1 of 3 separate groups (n=26); Navitip group (control), XP-Endo Finisher group, or Ultra X group. After a single visit root canal treatment and a specific method of agitation, depending on each group, the patients were given a questionnaire on which the patient would mark the degree of pain in a scale from 0 to 10 at 6, 12, 24, 48, 72 hours and 7 days post-obturation. Data were statistically analyzed with a significance level of P ≤ 0.05. Results Ultrasonic agitation and XP-Endo Finisher agitation as a final irrigation protocol showed significantly lower pain values than the control group, but there was no significant difference in pain values between the experimental groups. Conclusion There was significantly less pain associated with ultrasonic and XP-Endo Finisher agitation compared to Navitip irrigation.

Effectiveness of XP-Endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation on intracanal medicament removal from root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

XP-Endo Finisher (XPF) and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) are commonly used in intracanal medicament removal. The effectiveness of these two techniques needs to be compared, and evidence-based research should be conducted.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to December 20th, 2020. The outcomes of the included trials were pooled into the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager 5.3 software. Cochrane’s risk-of-bias tool 2.0 was applied to assess the risk of bias.

Results

Nine articles were included in this systematic review and processed for data extraction, and eight studies were identified for meta-analysis. In general, the use of PUI showed better medicament removal effectiveness than XPF (odds ratio [OR]: 3.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.96–4.86; P < 0.001). PUI was also significantly more efficient than XPF in the apical third (OR: 3.42; 95% CI, 1.32–8.84; P = 0.01). For trials using sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) alone, PUI was also significantly more effective than XPF on intracanal medicaments removal (OR: 5.23; 95% CI, 2.79–9.82; P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between PUI and XPF when NaOCl and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) were used in combination (OR: 1.51; 95% CI, 0.74–3.09; P = 0.26). In addition, for studies whose intracanal medicament periods were two weeks, the effectiveness of PUI was statistically better than the XPF (OR: 7.73; 95% CI, 3.71–16.07; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, for trials whose intracanal medicament time was one week or over two weeks, no differences between the XPF and PUI were found (OR: 1.54; 95% CI, 0.74–3.22; P = 0.25) (OR: 1.42; 95% CI, 0.44–4.61; P = 0.56).

Conclusions

The meta-analysis is the first study to quantitatively compare the effectiveness of XPF and PUI techniques on intracanal medicaments removal. With rigorous eligibility criteria, the study only included high-quality randomised controlled trials. The study indicated that PUI might be superior over XPF techniques for removing intracanal medicaments from artificial standardized grooves and cavities in the root canal system. The anatomical areas, irrigation protocol, and intracanal medicaments time may influence the cleaning efficacy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-021-01644-7.

In Vitro Evaluation of Different Irrigation Protocols on Intracanal Smear Layer Removal in Teeth with or without Pre-Endodontic Proximal Wall Restoration

To investigate the influence of pre-endodontic coronal wall restoration on smear layer removal during different root canal irrigation strategies, single-root premolars were prepared with a mesio-occlusal cavity. Half were left untreated (G1), while the mesial walls of the remaining half were reconstructed using a resin composite (G2). The specimens were divided into control (ctrl) groups, which used the conventional needle irrigation method, and four experimental subgroups according to irrigation strategy: Sonic activation using the Endoactivator, sonic activation using the EQ-S, mechanical activation using the XP-Endo finisher, and ultrasonic activation using the EndoUltra. Smear layer removal was assessed through SEM and the results were statistically analyzed. At the coronal and middle thirds, no significant difference (p > 0.05) was detected for G1 and G2, except for the control subgroups (G1ctrl vs G2 ctrl) at the middle third. At the apical third, the smear layer removal was significantly greater for G2 than G1. In G1, both at the middle and apical level, EQ-S and EndoUltra showed greater smear layer removal (p < 0.05) compared to the others G1 subgroups. In G2, at the apical level, the EQ-S and EndoUltra were the most effective in smear layer removal. Pre-endodontic coronal wall restoration may improve the smear layer removal during root canal irrigation.

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

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.

Cleaning Efficacy of the XP-Endo® Finisher Instrument Compared to Other Irrigation Activation Procedures: A Systematic Review

Background. One of the most important aims of an endodontic treatment is to obtain the complete removal or reduction of root canal remaining filling material: Smear layer, bacteria, intra-canal medicaments. To meet this requirement, several irrigation activation techniques have been proposed. Our systematic review examined studies which analyzed the XP-endo Finisher (XPF) instrument efficacy in removing root canal debris during initial endodontic treatment or retreatment, comparing it with the efficacy of other irrigation activation protocols, such as passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), laser activation procedure (Er:YAG), and Self-Adjusting File system (SAF). Methods. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Chocrane Library, and Scopus databases, identifying 51 items. Thirty-four articles were excluded based on title, abstract, full text, and language. Seventeen randomized controlled trials were selected and consequently submitted to quality assessment and data collection. Results. Conventional needle irrigation (CNI) is the less effective irrigation technique, but it is still unclear whether XPF is able to guarantee greater debris removal than the PUI technique. Er:YAG laser has been proven to be more effective in apical third than XPF instrument. Conclusions. Further investigations are needed in order to establish which final irrigation activation procedure could reach the maximum root canal debris reduction.